Can Progressivism Be Overthrown?

Authored by Jeffrey A. Tucker via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

For the last year and a half, Americans have been slammed with politics to the point that it has made vast numbers of people nearly crazy. Following the news, the blow-by-blow is not easy, and it is worse seeing coalitions form, collapse, reconstitute, form again, and be witness nonstop to what seem to be subversions, betrayals, duplicates, and disappointments.

U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Clarence Thomas speaks at the University of Texas at Austin, in Austin, Texas, on April 15, 2026. AP Photo/Eric Gay

We follow the polls, donate to candidates, listen to podcasts, cheer our friends and boo the bad guys, all in this exciting spectator sport. I'm told it's not really this way in Europe. Americans have a distinct sense of investment in the way our public life operates and we believe we can and should do something about it.

Do we really have a clear conception of the larger forces at work? I sense that what is lacking is a clear-headed theory about what is actually going on, that is the thematics of the larger struggle going on here.

Oh sure, there are plenty of people who will tell you that this is about stopping the attempt of Donald Trump to be like a king. My neighborhood was filled with "No Kings" yard signs, until the same households quietly took them down as they cheered the visit of King Charles of Britain.

Others say this is really a struggle between the two political parties, an argument about U.S. foreign policy interests, wrangling over personnel, and so on. I'm not going to discount other theories entirely but what they all lack is a bigger philosophical way to understand our times.

A Supreme Court Justice recently gave a spectacular speech, one of the most important - probably THE most important - in a century or more. I've rarely read anything so clear, concise, accurate, and incredibly truth-telling.

Those who understand the speech and its message are going to be better positioned to understand what is really going on in our times. Those who ignore this speech will continue to be mystified by the day-to-day headlines and roiling political news.

The author and speaker is Justice Clarence Thomas, one of the most impactful voices of our times. It was delivered at the University of Texas, Austin, on April 15, 2026.

The core underlying message: Progressivism is falling apart or already is gone because it is contrary to the American idea. The remaining argument today that matters is what will replace it.

To understand the implications, we need to understand what Progressivism is, the role it played in remaking this country, its theory of power and expertise, why it was never consistent with American ideals, and why it is destined for the dust bin of history.

He begins with the historical context and the centrality of the Declaration of Independence. It "did not establish a form of government - that was the job of the Constitution that followed - but it stated the purpose of government. The Declaration made clear in unmistakable prose that the purpose of government is to protect our God-given inalienable rights, rights that all individuals equally possess."

"The ideas of the Declaration," he says, "were so powerful that our nation could not coexist with the contradiction created by the great evil of slavery. Those principles were so powerful that hundreds of thousands of Americans fought and died in the Civil War to make men free. Those ideas have been so powerful that they convinced our nation to finally end segregation. They continue to be so powerful today that they have inspired people throughout the world to throw off the shackles of their oppressors."

As he says, the Founders were willing to commit everything with great courage to the cause of individual rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It was not mere philosophy but life purpose, something for which they were willing to fight with courage and enormous risk and sacrifice. That decision shaped the American experience.

It is about a third of the way through where the speech gets hot and revealing of a history that very few students or adults today understand. He explained how the advent of Progressivism in the early teens of the 20th century effectively attacked and overthrew the vision of the Founders and the Declaration.

"At the beginning of the 20th century, a new set of first principles of government was introduced into the American mainstream," he says. "The proponents of this new set of first principles, most prominently among them the 28th President, Woodrow Wilson, called it Progressivism. Since Wilson's presidency, Progressivism has made many inroads in our system of government and our way of life. It has coexisted uneasily with the principles of the Declaration. Because it is opposed to those principles, it is not possible for the two to coexist forever."

"Progressivism was not native to America," he continues in ways that are consistent with everything I've read about this period. Indeed, some of the most influential intellectuals that emerged on the U.S. scene in that time had in fact done their graduate work in Germany, schooled in the dreams of technocracy and centralized social and economic management.

"Wilson and the progressives candidly admitted that they took it from Otto von Bismarck's Germany, whose state-centric society they admired. Progressives like Wilson argued that America needed to leave behind the principles of the Founding and catch up with the more advanced and sophisticated people of Europe. Wilson called Germany's system of relatively unimpeded state power 'nearly perfected.'"

To Wilson, the inalienable rights of the individual were "a lot of nonsense." Wilson redefined "liberty" not as a natural right antecedent to the government. Instead he saw liberty as "the right of those who are governed to adjust government to their own needs and interests." The government, as Wilson said, would be "beneficent and indispensable."

Progressivism, says Thomas, "requires of the people a subservience and weakness incompatible with a Constitution premised on the transcendent origin of our rights."

It was this period in history when the original design of the Constitution was mangled with a 16th Amendment that authorized the income tax and the 17th Amendment that turned the bicameral Congress into a unitary majoritarian body, thus empowering large cities over states. The central bank came along at the same time. The federal agencies grew and grew, with ever more power and invasions of rights.

Central to the Progressive vision was the exaltation of science, as understood by credentialed experts, at the expense of liberty. They believed that Darwin had demonstrated the dangers of unchecked procreation and sought to replace freedom with race theory, segregation, and eugenics. This wicked vision of the purpose of government mutated further in Europe with the rise of Nazism, fascism, communism, and the administrative state that effectively deleted people's government.

Justice Thomas explains all of this in bracingly brief form. It is an extremely satisfying read because he compresses hundreds of books into a short address. I frankly doubt that any Supreme Court Justice has dropped so many truth bombs in such a short space in the history of our country.

The central point: the entire vision failed. It did not give us a better managed society but social and economic stagnation, an overweening government ruled by supposed experts, invasions of our communities and families, and a crushing of individual liberty.

Make no mistake: all of this flowed from a philosophy of government that had nothing to do with the Founders' vision.

The system that displaced the Founders' structure is under pressure as never before today. Indeed, Progressivism is unraveling in our times because it has failed to live up to its promise, it breeds corporate corruption, it impoverishes people, and it is contrary to all our moral intuitions as a people.

"As we are gathered to celebrate this 250th anniversary of the Declaration," he concludes, "it may be tempting to do so as if we are passive spectators. It may be tempting to ... treat the Declaration like a shiny object or a keepsake, and listen to the sound of our own voices. ... What we must turn our attention to today is finding in ourselves the same level of courage that the signers of the Declaration had, so that we can do for our future what they did for theirs."

His final message to students: "Each of you will have opportunities to be courageous every day, whether your calling in life is as a day laborer, a stay-at-home mom, a small business owner, an educator, an office worker, a judge, or a Senator. It may mean speaking up in class tomorrow when everyone around you expects you to live by lies. ... It may mean turning down a job offer that requires you to make moral compromises. One thing I know to be true: It will mean waking up every day with the resolve to withstand unfair criticism and attacks. These are the choices that will confront you, and you must decide whether to respond with timidity or with courage, as the signers of the Declaration did."

Hear, hear! This is a mighty and glorious speech in all its essentials, worthy of deep study and wide readership. Once you internalize the meaning of it all, and consider how the Founders confronted a system they too had to overthrow in order to realize the blessings of liberty, our task becomes very clear.

Tyler Durden Thu, 05/21/2026 - 21:45

“We Must Leap Forward Into New Energy” - Canaccord’s Inaugural Nuclear Nexus Conference 

A new report from Canaccord Genuity captures the main threads from the firm’s first Nuclear Nexus conference, where fission and fusion developers, academics, and investors gathered to confront the practical barriers to scaling nuclear power. 

The event highlighted a shared recognition that surging electricity demand from AI data centers “finds itself bottle-necked by the physical reality of the grid”, forcing a hard look at fuel supply chains, regulatory timelines, and technology choices that can actually deliver power this decade.

The forum set out to connect the established track record of fission with the still-developing promise of fusion. Participants framed the two paths as complementary: one centered on controlled separation to release energy at scale, the other on forcing materials together under extreme conditions to achieve the same goal. 

Canaccord’s summary presents this tension as more than rhetoric, noting that Western nuclear deployment has lagged for decades, while Asia and Russia have moved ahead, driving up costs and exposing fuel vulnerabilities.

Oklo CEO Jacob DeWitte outlined the company’s Aurora Powerhouse, a liquid sodium-cooled fast reactor drawing on proven EBR-II technology and a build-own-operate model. He stressed the importance of securing a domestic HALEU supply chain through Idaho National Laboratory and Centrus, with longer-term options that include spent fuel reprocessing and access to government plutonium reserves suited to fast reactor designs. 

The discussion tied directly into broader concerns about Western dependence on foreign enriched uranium sources.

MIT professor Jacopo Buongiorno highlighted how the lack of recent construction experience in the West has roughly doubled nuclear build costs compared with earlier decades. He noted that small modular reactors are more likely to provide financing flexibility than dramatically lower electricity costs, and that HALEU supply remains a critical chokepoint. 

The contrast with rapid expansion in Asia and continued Russian export dominance was presented as a structural challenge rather than a temporary setback.

On the fusion side, UK Atomic Energy Authority’s Mike Gorley described the technology as fundamentally a large-scale thermal engineering problem rather than pure physics. A key constraint he flagged is the global shortage of Lithium-6, essential for tritium breeding and reactor performance. 

Several companies presented deployment timelines. Terra Innovatum’s SOLO microreactor is designed to run on either LEU or HALEU and incorporates inherent safety features that eliminate meltdown and explosion risks. The company is targeting a first-of-a-kind demonstration in 2027 and commercial units in 2028 under the NRC’s proposed Part 57 microreactor framework. 

Inertia is pursuing inertial confinement fusion and plans to begin construction of a 1.5 GW grid-scale plant in 2030 after solving manufacturing challenges for high-efficiency lasers and fuel targets. 

Newcleo is advancing lead-cooled fast reactors with MOX fuel and has partnered with Oklo to establish a U.S. MOX fabrication capability, addressing the domestic prohibition on commercial plutonium reprocessing.

MIT professors Dennis Whyte and Andrew Lo described their new Rutherford Energy Ventures vehicle as a diversified portfolio approach across the fusion value chain. They cited easier regulatory pathways for fusion compared with fission and immediate revenue potential from spin-off technologies as reasons the sector could reach system-level integration within the next decade, aided by hyperscaler demand.

TerraPower, backed by Bill Gates, received a landmark NRC construction permit in March 2026 for its Natrium sodium-cooled fast reactor in Wyoming. The company is on track for a 2030 startup and has signed a major agreement with Meta to develop up to eight additional Natrium units capable of supplying 4 GW of dispatchable power to data centers. 

Zap Energy is running a dual-track program that pairs a Z-pinch fusion reactor with a simpler sodium-cooled fission microreactor, planning to deploy the lower-risk fission technology in the early 2030s before scaling fusion later in the decade.

Panels on critical materials and isotopes pointed to persistent supply constraints for both medical isotopes and nuclear fuel components that are expected to last through the 2020s due to underinvestment and lengthy permitting. ASP Isotopes is commercializing laser-based enrichment, SHINE Technologies is generating near-term revenue from isotope production and fusion-fission hybrids, and Uranium Energy Corp is positioning its U.S.-focused uranium assets against a projected 1.9-billion-pound market deficit.

NuScale and its development partner ENTRA1 are advancing a six-plant deployment across the Tennessee Valley Authority territory, with four sites already identified. 

Participants noted that while evolutionary light-water designs are likely to lead near-term deployments, Generation IV reactors should play a larger role through the 2030s. Elementl framed itself as a technology-agnostic integrator focused on scaling proven light-water reactor projects to 100 GW by 2040 while hyperscalers such as Google provide early demand signals.

The report leaves the impression that the nuclear sector is entering a more dynamic period, but one still defined by practical constraints on fuel, regulation, and execution speed rather than by any single breakthrough technology.

Tyler Durden Thu, 05/21/2026 - 21:20

It's Not Iran Trapping Ships In The Hormuz, It's The Insurance Risk

Is the Iranian regime the immediate barrier to oil tankers seeking to exit the Strait of Hormuz, or is it fear of liability that's keeping shipping companies at bay?

The damage actually done to Iran's military and weaponry by US strikes is a matter of hot debate, but one aspect of the strikes that is relatively easy to confirm is the destruction to Iran's navy.  US Central Command indicates that around 92% of Iran's naval capacity has been sunk to the bottom of the ocean including at least 10 small submarines.  So far, the regimes ability to actually hit and destroy US ships is next to nil.

The much vaunted "mosquito fleet" of small and fast attack boats has proven to be ineffective against US operations in the Strait, with some naval ships traveling directly through the Hormuz without much trouble.  At bottom, Iran has no ability to enforce an effective "blockade" on the strait. 

The regime's containment is mostly restricted to the use of drones, which can be countered with US technology (jamming and counter-drone operations).  But Iran also understands that the volatility of the cargo and the insurance risk is the greater element working in their favor. 

In other words, no matter how effective US forces have been in destroying Iran's assets in the strait, the financial risk to oil shippers remains.  Insurance companies are the Trump Administration's biggest obstacle, not Iran's military.  Tankers will not budge because there are too many coverage gaps, including the dreaded environmental coverage gap.

Pre-conflict, the insurance premium baseline for the Hormuz was extremely low (0.25% of a ships total value).  Today, those premiums have spiked from 2% to 10%.  Major insurers including P&I clubs like Gard, Skuld, NorthStandard and London P&I issued cancellation notices for war-risk coverage in the Persian Gulf area, effective in March. Reinsurers pulled back, forcing repricing.  The costs are far too high and the risk outweighs the reward. 

Traffic in the strait dropped by 80% almost immediately because of the loss of insurance.  This created a self-reinforcing problem: Even with limited US naval guidance ("Project Freedom") or occasional Iranian-coordinated passages, commercial operators avoid the risk without affordable coverage.

Industry brokers and shipping executives assert that the costs cannot be managed, and they have decided to adopt a "wait and see" approach on negotiations. Marcus Baker, Global Head of Marine, Cargo & Logistics at Marsh notes that tankers remain “insurable, if you’re prepared to take the risk...” but he emphasized the massive cost barrier for most operators.  

Interestingly, Iran's latest negotiation salvo on the strait focuses on their own crypto-based insurance scheme.  It effectively amounts to a "protection racket", forcing companies to buy insurance from the regime in exchange for safe passage.  However, there have been few takers; most shippers don't trust Iran to ensure the safety of their vessels.   

The obvious first solution would be for the Trump Administration to offer US backed coverage for tankers traversing the Hormuz.  This already happened in March.

Early in the war President Trump directed the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation (DFC) to provide political risk insurance and financial guarantees for maritime trade in the Gulf region.  A maritime reinsurance facility was established offering up to $40 billion for hull & machinery, cargo, and in some expansions, liability risks. It partners with major insurers like Chubb and AIG.

The alternative coverage is reasonable, but there are some problems.  The US is not offering full coverage which includes environmental damages should an oil spill take place, along with other gaps which prevent shippers from taking the deal.  It also does not yet guarantee full escort protection for tankers traversing the strait, a factor which has been up in the air due to negotiations. 

Analysts at Moody's note that US government-backed coverage will not fully restart flows without broader liability protections.

In other words, if the Trump Administration wants to get ships moving out of the strait anytime soon, they will have to amend their insurance to cover all gaps including environmental risk.  And, they will have to provide a reliable escort system.  This can be easily accomplished with Littoral combat ships with anti-mine and anti-air capability and anti-drone tech that are able to operate in shallow and narrow waters.  These ships have some of the most advanced automated anti-drone systems in the world.  

Accurate details on negotiations with the Iranian regime are sparse.  Iran's propaganda operations on social media often contradict their own diplomatic statements.  It's important to keep in mind that the regime is concerned with looking weak to their own population, and the constant posturing online is often designed to keep their citizenry in line rather than frighten the US.

There are also questions as to who is actually in charge.  Iran's new "supreme leader" has not been seen alive since the decapitation strikes.  Theories suggest the IRGC has reanimated the corpse of Ayatollah Mojtaba Khamenei through propaganda as a means to maintain a semblance of government authority. 

It may be that no one is really at the wheel in Iran and that current negotiations are nothing more than a stalling tactic while the remaining officials vie for power.  A deal may be close, but alternatives need to be considered.  All other factors aside (including Iran's stockpile of nearly 1000 pounds of 60% enriched Uranium which they openly admit to having), the Strait of Hormuz may require solutions outside of a deal with Iran.  And, those ships simply will not move without some impressive financial guarantees from the US.        

Tyler Durden Thu, 05/21/2026 - 20:30

US Deploys Aircraft Carrier To Caribbean As Trump Admin Pressures Cuba Authored by Jack Phillips via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The U.S. military command operating in the Western Hemisphere said on May 20 that an aircraft carrier strike group entered the Caribbean Sea, as the Trump administration heaps pressure on the Cuban communist regime.

In a post on X, U.S. Southern Command said that the USS Nimitz is now in the Caribbean and released video footage of the carrier group. Southern Command did not provide more details about why the carrier group traveled to the region.

The Nimitz, it said, "has proven its combat prowess across the globe, ensuring stability and defending democracy from the Taiwan Strait to the Arabian Gulf."

The Nimitz, commissioned in 1975, carried out joint naval exercises with the Brazilian Navy off the coast of Rio de Janeiro last week, the U.S. Embassy in Brazil said in a May 14 statement.

On May 20, the Department of Justice (DOJ) unsealed a criminal indictment against former Cuban leader Raul Castro, and U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio released a video in Spanish urging Cubans to reject the country's communist leadership.

According to the DOJ indictment, Castro was indicted in connection with the 1996 downing of civilian planes operated by Miami-based exiles. Castro, now 94, was Cuba's defense minister when the planes were shot down, killing four people.

The charges against Castro, the brother of former Cuban leader Fidel Castro, drew pushback from the country's current leader, Miguel Diaz-Canel, in a post on X.

"This is a political maneuver, devoid of any legal foundation, aimed solely at padding the fabricated dossier they use to justify the folly of a military aggression against Cuba," Diaz-Canel wrote.

This year, U.S. President Donald Trump has been ratcheting up talk of regime change in Cuba and said he would potentially initiate a "friendly takeover" of the country if its leadership did not open up its economy to American investment and kick out U.S. adversaries.

When asked what will happen next for the U.S. embargo on Cuba on Wednesday, Trump said, "We're going to see." He added that the U.S. government is ready to provide humanitarian assistance to what he described as a failing country.

Trump said that "there won't be escalation" between the United States and Cuba, adding, "I don't think there needs to be."

"Look, the place is falling apart. It's a mess," Trump added. "They've really lost control of Cuba."

In Cuba, there is no food, electricity, or energy, Trump said, adding that the U.S. government will have to act to assist the country.

Earlier this month, CIA Director John Ratcliffe traveled to Cuba to meet with the country's top officials, a visit that came as the country's energy minister said the island has completely run out of fuel and that its power grid is in a critical state.

In January, the U.S. military launched an operation in Venezuela that captured its president, Nicolas Maduro, an ally of the Cuban regime, and took him to the United States to face drug-trafficking charges.

Since September 2025, the U.S. military has been launching strikes against suspected drug-smuggling boats in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific Ocean in what the military calls Operation Southern Spear.

Nimitz-class aircraft carrier USS George H.W. Bush (CVN 77) sails in the Arabian Sea, on May 3, 2026. Courtesy of the U.S. Navy Tyler Durden Thu, 05/21/2026 - 17:00

Exit Taxes Won't Save Failing States

Authored by Vance Ginn via TheDailyEconomy.org,

When a state starts floating an exit tax, it is telling you something more important than any campaign slogan: the people running the place know their model is not working. 

They may not say it that way. They will call it fairness, responsibility, or making the wealthy “pay what they owe.” But the meaning is the same. 

If families, entrepreneurs, and investors are leaving, the state can either ask why its policies are pushing them out, or it can try to tax them for escaping. An exit tax chooses punishment over reform. 

I understand why these proposals resonate with some people. If you are watching wealthy residents relocate while governments still face bills for schools, roads, pensions, and other commitments, it is easy to feel like the people with the most mobility are ducking the tab. 

That frustration is real. It deserves a serious answer. But an exit tax is not a serious answer. It is a confession that lawmakers would rather cling to a failing fiscal model than fix the spending, regulation, and tax policies that made people want to leave in the first place. 

That is why the current trend is so revealing.

In California, proposals have centered on taxing billionaire net worth, including wealth that often exists on paper rather than in cash. In New York, the push has extended to a new surcharge on high-value second homes in New York City.

In Washington, lawmakers have already enacted a “millionaires’ tax.” These policies differ in form, but not in spirit. They all send the same message: if government has made your state too expensive, too hostile, or too unpredictable, it may still try to claim part of your future anyway. 

The economics are worse than the politics. Supporters talk as if wealth is a pile of idle cash sitting in a vault, just waiting to be skimmed. It is not. Wealth is usually tied up in businesses, shares, property, and future earnings. 

Taxing net worth or unrealized gains means taxing value that often has not been sold, realized, or converted into cash. That can force asset sales, dilute business ownership, weaken investment, and change behavior long before the tax collector ever gets a check.

 A Hoover Institution analysis of California’s proposal found that once likely migration responses are considered, the measure could leave the state with a negative net present value of about $25 billion. That is the real lesson: politicians score the tax statically, but the economy does not sit still. 

And that is before you get to the broader evidence. The OECD has noted that recurring net wealth taxes have become much less common across advanced economies because they tend to raise less revenue than promised while creating large compliance costs, avoidance incentives, and economic distortions. Countries tried them. Many backed away. 

A recent NBER study on Scandinavian wealth taxation found that higher top wealth-tax rates reduced the number of wealthy taxpayers and that many of those taxpayers were business owners whose departure reduced investment, employment, and value-added. 

That is the part too often ignored in political talking points. When a state drives out a founder, investor, or employer, it is not just losing one tax return. It is losing future jobs, future capital formation, and future opportunity for everybody else too. 

Defenders of exit taxes still fall back on one argument that sounds morally satisfying: these taxpayers benefited from state infrastructure, legal protections, and markets while they lived there, so the state deserves one final cut

But that argument quietly rewrites the relationship between citizen and government. It turns moving into a taxable offense. It says the state retains a lingering claim on your success because you once lived under its jurisdiction. That is a dangerous principle in a federal system built on mobility and competition.

 Even in the international arena, exit taxes are controversial, complex, and tied to specific movements of assets or functions across borders. Importing that logic into state tax policy is not modernization. It is escalation. 

The problem is not just that these taxes are bad economics. It is that they usually do not stay narrow. Politicians sell them as a tool aimed only at billionaires or luxury homeowners — policy aimed at an applause line. But when the revenue falls short, the scope expands. 

One-time wealth taxes become annual property surcharges. “Billionaire” thresholds are expanded to target millionaires and eventually the middle class. “Temporary” taxes become permanent fiscal architecture. New York’s pied-à-terre proposal is a good example of how quickly the logic expands once the principle is accepted. 

Frédéric Bastiat warned us to look not just at what is seen, but at what is unseen. We see the tax revenues. That’s a small, visible victory compared to the investment that never happens, the entrepreneur who builds elsewhere, jobs that never arrive — the unseen costs compound. 

Exit taxes are built on ignoring all of that. 

Claiming an exit tax frames mobility as theft, when it is often a rational response to bad governance. They do not restore prosperity. They steal the opportunity to prosper by doubling down on the very policies that made growth harder in the first place. 

If lawmakers want to deter departures, the answer is not a fiscal trap door. It is better policy: lower taxes, lighter regulation, spending restraint, and a serious effort to make their states places where productive people want to stay.

Real economic renewal is more difficult than yet more taxation, but it is also the only approach that works. Exit taxes will not save failing states. They only confirm why people wanted to leave. 

Tyler Durden Thu, 05/21/2026 - 16:20

No Deal Reached, Amid 'Fabricated' Mideast Media Reports; Trump Presses Nuclear Issue & Iran President Says 'Won't Back Down' Summary

• Al Arabiya issues dramatic retraction on prior 'deal reached' reporting.
• Iranian president vows to not back down, as Trump still vows to get nuclear material.
• AI Arabiya TV obtains what it describes as final draft of US-lran agreement, 
• Reuters reported that Ayatollah ordered that stockpile of uranium enriched to 60% remain strictly inside Iranian territory. Some Iranian officials then denied report to Al Jazeera.
• WH says make a deal or else... "they can face a punishment from our military the likes of which has not been seen in modern history."
• US Intelligence says Iran has reconstitute drone program, defense industrial base, "faster than expected" (CNN).

//--> //--> //--> Will the Iran ceasefire continue through June 15?
Yes 51% · No 50%
View full market & trade on Polymarket

*  *  *

No Deal Reached: Prior Reports 'Fabricated'

After something like eight hours - which unleashed significant moves in oil and markets - complete retractions are being issued, with words like 'fabrication' used, after which oil swings higher...

Iranian President: Won't Back Down

Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian has stated, "We will not bow our heads, our ministers and experts are working day and night, without a single day off." He added, per state sources: "We are willing to sacrifice as much as possible for the honor and pride of Iran, and we are not afraid of martyrdom."

And just like that...

Markets reversed earlier gains as Iran's President said on state TV that they won't back down in talks. The momentum then picked up when a "high-level source" told Al-Arabiya that the Pakistani Army Chief will not head to Tehran tonight.

The Pakistani were supposed to head to Iran only when the reach of an agreement was in sight, so this kind of denies the earlier reports of a US and Iran draft agreement.

US stock indices erased more than half of earlier gains. We've seen the same reaction in oil, FX and bond markets but now they are consolidating.

Still, Al Jazeera is reporting that "negotiators are very close to reaching a deal, and are currently working on a draft text. At the same time, another source told Al Jazeera that it is too early to judge whether a serious, final agreement is within reach."

IRNA has cited a Pakistani official who says the talks are "moving in the right direct" - though it's anyone's guess at this point. The prior reported draft did not take up the nuclear issue. Trump continues to press the nuclear issue:

US President Donald Trump has again pledged to seize Iran’s stockpile of highly enriched uranium as part of any agreement over Tehran’s nuclear program.

“Look, we’re going to make sure they don’t have a nuclear weapon or we’re going to have to do something very drastic. I believe when it’s put to the people of our country, they will all agree we cannot let Iran get a nuclear weapon,” Trump told reporters at the White House.

Asked whether Iran could retain its enriched uranium, Trump replied: “No, we will get it. We don’t need it, we don’t want it, we’ll probably destroy it after we get it. But we’re not going to let them have it.”

Oil Plunges on Final Draft of US-Iran Agreement Reached

Is this the one? While we've seen this rodeo before, oil is plunging on a Saudi media report which is positive for peace. Crude hits low of day...

Traders Circulate AI Arabiya TV obtaining what it describes as final draft of US-lran agreement: (CLICK TO SEE KEY PROVISIONS) - UNCONFIRMED

Key provisions include:

1) An immediate, comprehensive, and unconditional ceasefire on all fronts (land, sea, air)

2) Mutual commitment not to target military, civilian, or economic infrastructure

3) Cessation of military operations and instigating media warfare

4) Respect for sovereignty, territorial integrity, and non-interference in internal affairs

5) Guaranteed freedom of navigation in the Gulf, Strait of Hormuz, and Sea of Oman

6) Establishment of a joint monitoring and dispute resolution mechanism

7) Launch of negotiations on outstanding issues within seven days

8) Gradual lifting of U.S. sanctions in exchange for Iran's adherence to the terms

9) Affirmation of compliance with international law and the UN Charter

Importantly, there's no mention of the nuclear issue.

"The agreement is stated to enter into force immediately upon formal announcement by both parties," the Al Arabiya report says.

Saudi’s @AlArabiya TV has obtained what it describes as the final draft of a prospective Pakistani mediated U.S.-Iran agreement, reportedly set to be announced within hours [It does not align with what I am hearing].

Key provisions include:
1) An immediate, comprehensive, and… https://t.co/qxpEDSX04a pic.twitter.com/M0D1hMCD8b

— Basha باشا (@BashaReport) May 21, 2026

Drones, Military Industrial Base Being Rapidly Restored Amid Extended Ceasefire

The Iranians have reportedly rebuilt damaged and destroyed defense industrial sites much faster than expected. That's according to US intelligence assessments cited in CNN, and based on anonymous officials. The Pakistan-mediated talks have been stalled, and each of the last several weeks has seen Washington issue updated peace conditions, only for Tehran to in return counter-issue its own demands. And round and round the indirect negotiation has gone, yet with no breakthrough, or not so much as a step forward.

But perhaps this was all a tactic to simply prolong the ceasefire? It allowed for Iran to rearm and regroup, after the prior 38-days of US-Israeli bombing. "Iran has already restarted some of its drone production during the six-week ceasefire that began in early April, one sign it is rapidly rebuilding certain military capabilities degraded by US-Israeli strikes, according to two sources familiar with US intelligence assessments," CNN reports Thursday. "Four sources told CNN that US intelligence indicates Iran’s military is reconstituting much faster than initially estimated."

One US official cited in the report has gone so far as to say "The Iranians have exceeded all timelines the IC had for reconstitution." In the recent past, White House officials themselves have admitted that the Islamic Republic is probably reconstituting. Trump in the meantime keeps saying he's 'days' away from reordering strikes amid Tehran's intransigence. According to more on Iranian efforts to prepare for the next potential round of fighting:

The rebuilding of military capabilities, including replacing missile sites, launchers and production capacity for key weapons systems destroyed during the current conflict, means that Iran remains a significant threat to regional allies should President Donald Trump restart the bombing campaign, according to the four sources familiar with the intelligence. It also calls into question claims about the extent to which US-Israeli strikes have degraded Iran’s military in the long term.

While the time to restart production of different weapons components varies, some US intelligence estimates indicate Iran could fully reconstitute its drone attack capability in as soon as six months, one of the sources, a US official, told CNN.

They already tried that. It did not work. https://t.co/1OEZ50d5st

— Scott Horton (@scotthortonshow) May 21, 2026

Iranian Denials

Throughout the morning, and since the Reuters report was first issued, various unnamed Iranian officials are saying the Ayatollah gave no such order regarding taking enriched uranium removal off the table when it comes to potential negotiations. According to an Al Jazeera correspondent: 

A senior Iranian official denied to me reports that Supreme Leader Mujtaba Khamenei has issued a new order requiring enriched uranium to remain inside Iran, saying they are “propaganda by the enemies of the deal” The official added there are “no new order has been issued,” and that Tehran’s position has been consistent: Iran would downblend the material itself. “That is the subject of talks in the next stage,” the official said.

This will likely only fuel speculation of deep division within Iranian leadership ranks. Traditionally the IRGC reports directly to the Ayatollah, and is seen as the more hardline faction, ready to resist compromise and opt for a military response to US pressure.

Oil snaps lower on the denials... per Newsquawk:

In an immediate reaction, crude fell to the detriment of the USD and the benefit of equity and fixed benchmarks. Specifically:

• WTI Jul'26 fell from USD 102/bbl to USD 100.56/bbl.
• UST Jun'26 lifted from 109-00 to 109-04+.
• ES Jun'26 lifted from 7418 to 7433.

Ayatollah Orders Enriched Uranium To Say On Iranian Soil: RTRS

The illusion of a grand diplomatic breakthrough in the Middle East is once again colliding with reality. The White House has been busy trying to paint a picture of a total capitulation by Tehran, which hasn't been demonstrated given its consistent position defying Washington's demands on the nuclear issue.

According to two senior Iranian officials speaking to Reuters, Iranian Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei has drawn a hard line in the sand, ordering that Iran's stockpile of uranium enriched to 60% remain strictly inside Iranian territory.

Office of the Supreme Leader, via Reuters

Reuters underscores that "Ayatollah Mojtaba Khamenei's order could further frustrate U.S. President Donald Trump and complicate talks on ending the U.S.-Israeli war on Iran."

"Israeli officials have told Reuters that ‌Trump has assured Israel that Iran's stockpile of highly enriched uranium, needed to make an atomic weapon, will be sent out of Iran and that any peace deal must include a clause on this," the report continues.

The officials noted that within Tehran, there is deep suspicion that the ceasefire is in fact "a tactical deception by the US," designed to lull Iran into a "false sense of security... before the fighting resumes."

The fresh directive from from the supreme leader flies directly in the face of the narrative being spun by Washington and Tel Aviv, given Israeli officials maintain that President Trump explicitly promised Israel that Iran's highly enriched stockpile would be completely removed from the country as part of any negotiated settlement.

Trump has also recently proclaimed this publicly, for example in a phone interview with CBS News last month, wherein he confidently proclaimed that Iran "agreed to everything" and would cooperate fully to ship its enriched uranium out of the country.

Extraction of nuclear material would of course rely heavily on the assumption of total Iranian compliance, given Trump has also lately appeared to rule out out a hostile invasion force, stating, "No. No troops."

There seems to be widespread agreement among national security officials at this point that some kind of special forces op to covertly go in and take it would be tantamount to a 'suicide mission'.

According to more of what Trump (prematurely) proclaimed in the prior CBS interview: "Our people, together with the Iranians, are going to work together to go get it. And then we'll take it to the United States."

The reality is all along the two sides' positions have been very far apart, and largely unbending:

And on a potential deal: "We'll be getting it together because by that time, we'll have an agreement and there's no need for fighting when there's an agreement. Nice right? That's better. We would have done it the other way if we had to" - he sought to explain.

At the moment, Iranian officials are reportedly reviewing the latest updated US proposals for peace, having reportedly asked Pakistan for time to assess and study the American points for negotiations."

However, Khamenei locking down the 60% enriched uranium inside Iranian borders, and amid suspicion that the US ceasefire offer is but a Trojan horse to get the Islamic Republic to simply given up its potential last line of defense, doesn't bode well for the chances of a breakthrough anytime soon.

//--> //--> //--> Iran agrees to surrender enriched uranium stockpile by June 30, 2026?
Yes 18% · No 83%
View full market & trade on Polymarket

For the latest warning from the White House, via Stephen Miller: "Iran has a choice to make: they can either agree to a piece of paper that is satisfactory to the United States, or they can face a punishment from our military the likes of which has not been seen in modern history. That's the choice they face" - he told Fox News.

Tyler Durden Thu, 05/21/2026 - 16:15