? Dates: November 17, 18, and 19 ? Location: Orlando, Florida, USA (or tune in from home with our virtual ticket options)
Are you ready to unlock the future of economics and finance? Prepare for an unforgettable World Economic Conference experience in sunny Orlando, Florida! This premier event is your gateway to insights, networking, and valuable resources that will supercharge your understanding of the global economy.
?️ What’s Included for In-Person Attendees:
Unable to travel? We also have two different ticket options for those wishing to attend virtually!
Don’t miss this opportunity to be part of a global gathering of economic and financial minds. Secure your spot at the World Economic Conference in Orlando, Florida, and gain the knowledge, connections, and resources you need to thrive in the world of finance and economics.
Space is limited, so act now and reserve your seat! Visit our Events page to register and join us in sunny Orlando this November.
The second edition of “The Plot to Seize Russia – The Untold History” is now available for purchase in paperback and hardcover on Amazon and Barnes and Noble. The ebook will be available shortly.
Book description:
“Take care of Russia,” Boris Yeltsin said as he departed his presidency in August 1999. These words were directed at current Russian president, Vladimir Putin. Yeltsin specifically picked Putin as his predecessor to prevent the takeover of Russia.
So, who was Yeltsin warning against? Newly declassified documents from the Clinton Administration prove that there was a plot to rig the Russian election of 2000. These never-before-seen documents confirm numerous attempts to implement pro-Western policies using the Russian oligarchy headed by Boris Berezovsky.
On the other side were the communists who desired a return to the glory days of the Soviet Union. As one of the largest international hedge fund managers, author Martin Armstrong found himself in the middle of perhaps the greatest espionage, or attempt at a regime change for Russia, in modern history.
The Plot to Seize Russia pulls back the curtain to expose the most extraordinary attempt to seize power in modern history, but with the pen rather than armies. These declassified documents reveal a plot that has altered our thinking about the relations between the United States and Russia. The thirst for power comes seething through every line of these papers that alter our perception of reality, change the course of history, and now threaten us with World War III.
The resignation of Caitlin Kalinowski from OpenAI has triggered a debate that goes far beyond Silicon Valley. Kalinowski stepped down shortly after the company entered into an agreement with the United States Department of Defense to deploy its artificial intelligence models on government systems. The issue was not simply the partnership itself, but the speed at which the decision was made and the implications for how such powerful technology could be used as a weapon against American citizens.
“I resigned from OpenAI. I care deeply about the Robotics team and the work we built together. This wasn’t an easy call.” She was not rejecting national defense outright. She even acknowledged that “AI has an important role in national security.” Yet she warned that certain lines had been crossed. In her own words, “surveillance of Americans without judicial oversight and lethal autonomy without human authorization are lines that deserved more deliberation than they got.”
When someone inside the system walks away and raises that type of alarm, you should pay attention. For years, I have warned that governments are steadily constructing the infrastructure necessary to monitor populations in ways previous generations could not even imagine. After the September 11 attacks, intelligence agencies dramatically expanded their surveillance powers under the banner of protecting national security through the Patriot Act. Phone data, internet activity, and financial transactions became data points feeding enormous intelligence databases. The public was told these programs were narrowly targeted at foreign threats. Behind the curtain, the databases were growing larger every year. Governments now have access to EVERYTHING we do.
What most people do not realize is that the financial system was also pulled into this surveillance web. I have written before that governments began monitoring bank accounts and financial transfers on a scale that few citizens fully appreciate. Under the administration of Obama, programs quietly expanded to allow intelligence agencies to track international banking activity, financial flows, and transaction patterns in the name of national security. Those systems became permanent fixtures inside the intelligence community.
The trend accelerated under Joe Biden, when federal agencies aggressively pushed for greater reporting requirements from banks and financial institutions. Governments argued this was necessary to combat tax evasion, money laundering, and illicit activity. The financial behavior of ordinary citizens came under scrutiny, and Biden’s team was caught red-handed spying on anyone who supported his adversary. Donated to Trump? You’re on a list to be monitored. Hold religious beliefs that do not coincide with current political leanings? Anyone who purchased a Bible was placed on a list. Your bank account, your transactions, and even your spending patterns increasingly became part of enormous government databases.
What Kalinowski exposed is that the next phase is already underway. Once AI becomes embedded in national security systems, the surveillance state moves to an entirely new level. Governments will have the ability to monitor populations in real-time. Populations—not merely persons of interest—but the entire population. The people operating these systems are rarely elected officials. They are bureaucrats, intelligence officers, and agencies operating behind the curtain where the public has almost no visibility. Then the power is placed into the hands of a computer system that can instantly flag and target people or groups without moral discernment.
This is why the Kalinowski resignation matters. She warned openly about AI being used for domestic surveillance without oversight. Once these systems are integrated into government networks, the temptation to expand them becomes irresistible. Governments always claim these tools are necessary for security. But history shows that the definition of “security” tends to expand until it includes monitoring the population itself.
What is even more revealing is that officials within the Pentagon have already begun describing certain advanced AI systems as potential national security risks if they cannot be controlled by the government. In other words, artificial intelligence itself is now viewed as a threat unless it is firmly under the state’s control. That should tell you everything you need to know about where this is heading.
Do not assume these systems will remain limited to foreign adversaries. Surveillance infrastructure rarely stays confined to its original mission. Once built, it inevitably expands. The technology now exists to construct the most comprehensive monitoring system ever devised in human history. And if you think governments will not use it, you have not been paying attention.
The biggest constraint on artificial intelligence is not chips, software, or capital. It is electricity. Now the tech giants are finally admitting it. Seven major companies, including Amazon, Google, Microsoft, Meta, OpenAI, Oracle, and xAI, have signed a pledge committing to supply or finance their own power generation for the massive AI data centers they are building. The agreement essentially states that these firms will build or purchase new electricity sources and pay for the infrastructure needed so that the exploding demand for AI computing does not drive up electricity costs for ordinary consumers.
Data centers were once a background piece of infrastructure. AI has changed that completely. The energy requirements of AI computing are on an entirely different scale. Analysts now say AI data centers consume an order of magnitude more power than traditional server warehouses because of the massive computing loads required to run advanced models.
The numbers are staggering. U.S. data center electricity demand is expected to surge dramatically, reaching roughly 75.8 gigawatts in 2026 and potentially more than 134 gigawatts by 2030. Meanwhile, the Department of Energy estimates data centers could consume between 6.7% and 12% of all U.S. electricity by 2028. Global projections are even more dramatic, with data center electricity consumption potentially reaching hundreds of terawatt-hours annually as AI infrastructure expands worldwide.
Anyone who has followed my work already knows this problem was inevitable. I wrote previously that an electricity crisis was on the horizon precisely because governments were pursuing contradictory policies. They pushed electrification of everything from cars, heating systems, and industry while simultaneously shutting down reliable power generation and blocking new nuclear development. Then, suddenly, the world discovers AI requires an entirely new layer of energy infrastructure.
Even utilities are now warning that electricity demand is entering a new phase of rapid growth. After years of relatively flat consumption, U.S. power usage is expected to hit record levels in both 2026 and 2027, driven largely by AI data centers and the electrification of industry and transportation.
This is why the tech companies are suddenly pledging to build their own power sources. Local communities and utilities have begun pushing back against massive data center projects that could strain power grids and raise electricity costs for consumers. The pledge is essentially an attempt to reassure regulators and voters that the AI boom will not destabilize the energy system.
But this only highlights the deeper structural issue. Electricity infrastructure takes years or decades to build. AI demand is exploding now. The result is a growing gap between technological expansion and energy capacity. The irony is remarkable. Governments around the world spent years lecturing the public about reducing electricity consumption while simultaneously promoting industries that require exponentially more power. Artificial intelligence is not just a technological revolution, it is also an energy revolution.
If electricity supply does not expand dramatically, AI growth itself could hit a hard physical limit. The warning signs are already appearing. Tech companies are reopening nuclear plants, building dedicated power facilities, and now pledging to generate their own electricity simply to keep AI infrastructure running. When private companies begin building power plants to support their software, you know the system has reached a turning point.
The push to ban firearms in the United States never really stops. It simply advances in stages. Minnesota has now produced one of the more revealing examples of how far some politicians are willing to go. Democratic lawmakers are proposing legislation that would ban many semiautomatic rifles and magazines while forcing citizens who already own them to register their firearms and submit to government inspections inside their own homes. The proposal effectively says that if you wish to keep a legally purchased firearm, the government must first be allowed to verify how you store it.
According to the legislation, gun owners would need to obtain a certificate to keep firearms that the state plans to prohibit going forward. Even more troubling is the requirement that law enforcement be permitted to inspect the owner’s residence to verify compliance with storage rules. In other words, the state is asserting the authority to enter private homes to ensure obedience to government mandates.
The constitutional problems are obvious. The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution explicitly states that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The rifles being targeted are not rare or exotic weapons; they are among the most commonly owned firearms in the country. The courts have repeatedly acknowledged that arms in common use fall within the protection of the Constitution. Attempting to ban them outright invites a direct constitutional conflict.
At the same time, the proposal collides head-on with the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. That amendment was written precisely to prevent the government from entering a citizen’s home without proper cause and a warrant. Yet Minnesota’s proposal essentially conditions the ownership of private property on allowing police access to your residence. If you refuse, you lose the right to keep the firearm. This is a remarkable inversion of the principle that government power must be limited by the Constitution rather than the other way around.
Throughout history, governments have always preferred populations that are dependent and compliant. An armed citizenry is far more difficult to control. That is why the debate is rarely just about crime. Just look at Minnesota, a state riddled with fraud against taxpayers. The attention instead falls on the law-abiding citizens who legally purchased firearms and followed every rule imposed by the government. Politicians refuse to acknowledge the problems plaguing society unless those problems personally affect their campaigns.
Laws that directly challenge the Second and Fourth Amendments will almost certainly end up in the courts. The real question is whether the Constitution still serves as a meaningful restraint on government power or whether legislators now believe they can simply rewrite those limits whenever political convenience demands it.
Perhaps the greatest misunderstood reality of war is that people may focus on the tactical victory of eliminating a target, but there is far more to war than merely blowing up buildings or defeating an army on the battlefield. War always results in political change in both the victor and the vanquished. What is taking place right now in the Middle East will reshape the entire region and will forever cement the image of the United States as the imperial empire. President Donald Trump stated that the next supreme leader of Iran “is not going to last long” without his approval. He emphasized that the new leader must gain approval from the United States to ensure stability and prevent future threats. That is an image of an arrogant imperialist invader from colonial days.
Wars definitively reshape politics on both sides. It may embolden the victor to believe they are invincible, but it forever instills hatred and resentment in the minds and souls of the vanquished. Netanyahu’s wish list to destroy Iran will NOT secure some sort of magical long-term victory. It will only secured a deeper and more formidable enemy for centuries. The computer is warning of a serious Directional Change in 2027 and this may all explode in 2028.
Iran’s newly appointed supreme leader, Ayatollah Mojtaba Khamenei, said on March 12 that closing the Strait of Hormuz must remain an option and vowed retaliation for Iranians killed in the conflict, according to Iran’s state news agency Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA). Mojtaba Khamenei did not appear on camera during the broadcast. Israeli claim he may have suffered a leg injury during attacks targeting his father’s bunker. He is said to be more hardline than his father, who was against nuclear weapons. These attacks have flipped the table and increased the chance for nuclear war. The new supreme leader signaled that Iran would pursue a prolonged campaign of retaliation. He wrote:
“I assure everyone that we will not refrain from avenging the blood of your martyrs,” he added that each civilian killed by Iran’s enemies constituted a separate case for revenge.
The killing of a family member in a war is one of the most powerful and personal forces that can instill a deep, lasting hatred for the perceived enemy.
The warmongers never look at the human cost of war. The death of every civilian creates a personalization of the conflict. For most people, war is an abstract concept discussed in the news or history books. But when a family member is killed, the war becomes brutally personal. The abstract “enemy” is no longer a faceless soldier or a foreign government; they become the specific people who murdered my son/daughter/father/mother.
Grief is an overwhelming emotion that needs an outlet. Anger is often the most accessible and powerful form that grief takes, especially in the context of a violent death. Hatred for the enemy provides a clear, focused target for that rage and pain. It can feel better to hate someone than to be consumed by bottomless sorrow.
When a loved one dies in a seemingly senseless act of violence, the human mind struggles to find meaning. Believing that they died fighting a monstrous, hateful enemy can be a way to make sense of the senseless. It elevates their death from a random tragedy to a sacrifice in a just cause against evil – a martyr.
Perikles began the funeral oration for the first fallen in the Peloponnesian War.
“I shall begin with our ancestors: it is both just and proper that they should have the honour of the first mention on an occasion like the present. They dwelt in the country without break in the succession from generation to generation, and handed it down free to the present time by their valour. And if our more remote ancestors deserve praise, much more do our own fathers, who added to their inheritance the empire which we now possess, and spared no pains to be able to leave their acquisitions to us of the present generation. Lastly, there are few parts of our dominions that have not been augmented by those of us here, who are still more or less in the vigour of life; while the mother country has been furnished by us with everything that can enable her to depend on her own resources whether for war or for peace.”
Perikles invoked the ancestors and we are witnessing the same in Iran, which they prefer to call Persia. This individual hatred is often reinforced by the broader society at war. Propaganda, national narratives, and community mourning all work to channel personal grief into collective anger against the enemy. Funerals for soldiers become patriotic events, explicitly linking personal loss to national duty and framing the enemy as deserving of that hatred.
This is perhaps the most tragic aspect. A death in the family creates a powerful desire for vengeance—an eye for an eye. This desire can be passed down through generations, fueling conflicts that last for decades or even centuries. The loss becomes a family story, a sacred wound that justifies continued animosity.
Just as in the West Bank or Gaza, when a Palestinian child whose home is destroyed and whose parent is killed by Israeli forces, undoubtedly grows up with a profound hatred for Israelis. This is taking place in Iran right now. War is far more profound than merely bombing buildings and destroying targets.
In the case of Iran, Persia was conquered three times in history. First by Alexander the Great 334–330 BC The Macedonian king defeated the Achaemenid Empire, ending Persian rule for a time. Secondly, by Arab Muslims 636–651 AD Islamic armies conquered the Sassanian Empire, incorporating Persia into the Caliphate. The third times was by the Mongol Empire 13th Century Genghis Khan and later Hulagu Khan’s invasions devastated Persia. These are events that were not forgotton.
Wars don’t just leave behind physical destruction and political changes; they leave behind deep, lasting, and often invisible emotional and psychological scars on individuals, families, and entire societies for generations. These emotional wounds are often categorized under the umbrella of trauma. The most well-known diagnosis is PTSD (Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder) , but the scars are broader and more complex.
There are deep emotional and psychological distress that results from committing, witnessing, or failing to prevent acts that violate a person’s core moral or ethical beliefs. A soldier may feel profound shame and guilt for actions they were ordered to take in war.
I know people who have worked with veterans. What they have witnessed is that those who returned from Vietnam are angry compared to those from World War II. They are angry for what they now see was an unjust war.
This is one of the most profound and heartbreaking aspects. The emotional scars of war are not confined to those who experienced it directly. They can be transmitted to children and even grandchildren. The children and grandchildren of Holocaust survivors have been extensively studied for the effects of intergenerational trauma.
In the United States, we see the legacy of trauma in the families of veterans from the Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan wars.
In countless communities around the world—from Rwanda to the Balkans to the Middle East—the trauma of past conflicts continues to shape politics and personal identities decades later.
In short, the emotional scars of war are a hidden but remain as a powerful legacy. They can turn personal grief into generational hatred. They are a reminder that the cost of war is counted not only in lives lost but in lives forever changed. This profoundly changes the politics on both sides.
Based on current statements and analyses from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and other officials, Israel’s goal is not to “destroy Iran” in the sense of annihilating its land or people. Instead, their stated objective is far more specific: to bring about the downfall of the current Islamic Republic regime in Tehran – Regime Change.
Both the Italian and Russian Mafia are afraid of the Albanian Mafia. Why? It comes back to culture. Albanian criminal groups, their primary goal is not always to kill family members to prevent future retaliation. However, they absolutely target family members as a key tactic in their conflicts. This often has the effect of creating cycles of vengeance that can span generations. They are famous for Albania’s ancient tradition of the blood feud, known as the Kanun, for their own purposes.
This has been a cultural system to deter violence through fear of reciprocal revenge; an “early version of a mutually assured destruction pact.” Family members are seen as legitimate targets, especially when the primary target cannot be found. Strict rules, e.g., you cannot take revenge for a family member killed while committing an immoral act (like a crime). The Kanun is “misused” to justify any killing, including murdering a rival’s family to force them into hiding or to retaliate.
The Russian and Italian Mafia often comment on the Albanians and they will kill you, the wife, children, and the dog to prevent a blood feud. This does address the similar results from war, which the Neocons and warmongers never consider.
EXAMPLES:
The story of Wasil Ahmad during the War in Afghanistan (Taliban insurgency) is a classic example of intergenerational rage. At age 8, his father and uncles were killed by the Taliban. He trained to fight and, as a young teen, fought against the Taliban, becoming a legendary commander in his valley before being killed. There are many other examples that the warmongers pay no attention to the human cost of war.
Napoleon’s defeat at Waterloo didn’t just score a victory for the English; it created a whole new political paradigm in France. It temporarily restored the Bourbon monarchy under Louis XVIII, who had been waiting in exile with British support. This wasn’t a revolutionary transformation—it was a counter-revolution.
Nevertheless, even after the monarchy was restored, there was deep-seated resentment of the English. That came rushing to the forefront with Charles De Gaulle. The language became a symbol of that defeat, as the view became that Napoleon had won, the world would be speaking French instead of English. De Gaulle even attempted to borrow English words from the French language.
Language was incorporated into de Gaulle’s nationalism. He assumed that, had Napoleon won at Waterloo, the world would have been speaking French instead of English. As the Associated Press reported back in April 1967, when de Gaulle ordered all 440 NATO installations and troops to be removed from France, he was very much against any American words entering the French language.
De Gaulle established institutions like the *Délégation générale à la langue française (General Delegation for the French Language) to combat the spread of English terms. While many ‘Americanisms’ remained in everyday French vernacular, his efforts reflected a broader resistance to U.S. cultural hegemony. De Gaulle and his government promoted policies to preserve the purity of French, leading to measures such as the Loi Bas-Lauriol (1975), which later evolved into the Toubon Law (1994), mandating the use of French in official contexts. Some of the main American-adopted words he most opposed included:
De Gaulle’s nationalism and hatred of Americans and British led to his first assault on the United States, which took place on February 4th, 1965, where he expressed doubts about the dollar’s impartiality and suitability as an international trade medium. It was De Gaulle who attacked the dollar, demanding gold to drain the reserves and eventually forcing the collapse of Bretton Woods in 1971. He also disliked the British and supposedly said, “Belgium is a country invented by the British to annoy the French.”
The loss of Germany in World War I and the harsh reparation payments were the primary reasons for the rise of Hitler in 1933. All of that was set in motion when the French surrendered to the Germans
The first Treaty of Versailles was signed on February 26, 1871, ending the Franco-Prussian War and directly linked to the formation of the German Empire.
To be precise, the German Empire was proclaimed on January 18, 1871, at the first Treaty of Versailles, which was signed shortly after to formally end the war that made its unification possible. This was why the French insisted on a second Treaty of Versailles at the end of World War II.
During the 1940-1950s, this was the beginning of the rise of the Neocons. The future founders of neoconservatism were still left-wing anti-communist liberals. Thinkers like Irving Kristol and Daniel Bell were intellectuals in New York, but they were part of the liberal anti-communist tradition rather than a separate conservative movement. The Red Scare faded after McCarthy’s censure in 1954.
This is the formative period for neoconservatism. Disturbed by the New Left, the counterculture, and what they saw as the Democratic Party’s move away from a robust anti-communist foreign policy, these intellectuals began to define their own path. They coalesced around magazines like Commentary and The Public Interest.
During the 1970s into the early 1980s, the Neoconservatives gained political power. Disillusioned with the Carter administration’s foreign policy, many neoconservatives, such as Jeane Kirkpatrick and Elliott Abrams, moved to the Republican Party and became influential in the Reagan administration, shaping its Cold War strategy.
QUESTION: Do you think that Netanyahu has deliberately dragged Trump into his war? It has been his life’s mission to destroy Iran, whom he sees as the Amalek of 1 Samuel 15:2-3!
RB
ANSWER: I believe that the Neocons have cleverly created the FIRST war where we are NOT in charge. Netanyahu is a diehard Neocon, who hung out with Irving Kristol in Philadelphia, who was the godfather of the Neocon movement. To me, this is a serious RED FLAG!!!!!
In 2024, in his Knesset speech, Netanyahu said: “I’ve been warning about Iran for 30 years.” It was reported on March 3rd, during a visit to a site struck by an Iranian missile, Netanyahu stated: “We read in this week’s Torah portion, ‘Remember what Amalek did to you.’ We remember—and we act.”
In 1 Samuel 15:2-3, God gives King Saul a specific, direct order to carry out this command. The prophet Samuel relays the message: “This is what the LORD Almighty says: ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys. ‘”
The harshness of the command in 1 Samuel has disturbed Jewish scholars for centuries, leading to various interpretations that move beyond a literal call for genocide. If Netanyahu believes that genocide is the command of God, that is NOT in the self-interest of the United States. He knows you cannot accomplish regime change from the air. This is the very first time when we are in a partnership with another country who is really calling the shots here where the interests of Netanyahu are by no means the same national interest of the United States.
Killing the Ayatollah while in the midst of negotiation was revolting and it raises the clear precedent that you cannot now trust the United States to engage in negotiations in good faith. Like Merkel refusing to honor the Minsk Agreement, Europe has demonstrated they cannot be trusted to negotiation in good faith. Killing the Ayatollah on day one was a clear message that there is to be no peace with Iran. This is all about the total destruction of the Islamic Republic.
Trump has been implying the use of nuclear weapons. On FEBRUARY 28, 2026 POST-STRIKE, Trump said:
“We have capabilities Iran cannot imagine. If they retaliate, there will be nothing left.”
Here is my concern. Israel has nukes and already believes that they must utterly destroy the Islamic Republic. Looking at Netanyahu’s reference to Amalekites being the Persians, this passage calling for genocide right down to the elimination of even their cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys, I cannot feel comfortable that Netanyahu will not order a nuclear strike if the destruction of Israel is now a possibility.
We are by no means in charge of this war. Netanyahu would love nothing more than to see Trump commit American ground troops. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt on March 8th refused to rule out ground troops or a military draft. The Neocons know Trump well. They know he does not like to lose so dragging him into this war was their brilliant strategy to ensure that he will see this until the end.
To the Shia Muslims, this is a battle against the devil. Netanyahu has ensured killing the Ayatollah has invoked their end times views just as he has done the same. This appears to be a religious war that does not look good. It does not appear to be over quickly either.
AMERICAS:
AMERICA:
Dow declined by 739.42 points (-1.56%) to 46,677.85
S&P 500 declined by 103.18 points (-1.52%) to 6,672.62
NASDAQ declined by 404.16 points (-1.78%) to 22,311.979
Russell 2000 declined by 53.91 points (-2.12%) to 2,488.99
Canada Market Closings:
TSX Composite declined by 279.23 points (-0.84%) to 32,840.60
TSX 60 declined by 13.39 points (-0.70%) to 1,903.45
Brazil Market Closing:
Bovespa declined by 4,684.86 points (-2.55%) to 179,284.49
Saudi Arabia is doing precisely what governments do when they understand that the world is no longer stable: buying protection, influence, and time. Washington likes to pretend that Riyadh is suddenly a loyal ally because it is investing in the United States, helping Ukraine, and quietly aligning against Iran. Saudi Arabia is not acting out of friendship. It is acting out of self-interest, and that is exactly how nations survive when the world moves into a war cycle.
The money alone tells you this is not a symbolic relationship. The White House said in November that Saudi Arabia’s investment commitment into U.S. infrastructure, technology, and industry had risen to nearly $1 trillion, up from the $600 billion first announced in May 2025. At the same time, Treasury and the Saudi finance ministry signed frameworks on financial and economic partnership and capital-markets collaboration. Washington also packaged this together with civil nuclear cooperation, critical minerals, AI, and defense deals, including future F-35 deliveries and an agreement for Saudi Arabia to purchase nearly 300 American tanks. Riyadh is tying itself to the American industrial base, the American financial system, and American defense production because that is how you secure leverage in Washington.
At the same time, Saudi Arabia is now moving on the Ukrainian side in a way that would have been unthinkable a few years ago. According to the Kyiv Independent, a Saudi arms company has signed a deal to buy Ukrainian-made interceptor missiles, and Ukrainian industry sources said Riyadh and Kyiv were negotiating a separate “huge deal” for arms that could be finalized this week. Zelensky also said he had offered Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman Ukrainian help in intercepting Iranian Shahed drones, arguing that no country has more practical experience against them than Ukraine. Saudi Arabia is looking at the Gulf and seeing the same Iranian drone threat Ukraine has been dealing with for years. Riyadh is shopping for battlefield-tested systems because it believes the drone era is now on its doorstep. The one caveat is that the weapons-deal reporting rests on anonymous defense-industry sources, so the broad direction is clear even if the final size of the package is not yet publicly verified.
This also explains why Saudi Arabia is helping the United States against Iran while still trying to avoid being publicly dragged into a regional inferno. Reuters reported that after Iranian missile and drone strikes hit Gulf states hosting U.S. bases, including an attack targeting the U.S. embassy in Riyadh, the Saudi cabinet said it would take all necessary measures to defend its security and protect its territory, citizens, and residents. That is the language of a country that understands neutrality has limits. Saudi Arabia wants to contain Iran, and make sure Washington keeps treating the kingdom as indispensable.
The International Energy Agency says the Strait of Hormuz carried an average of 20 million barrels per day of crude oil and oil products in 2025, roughly 25% of the world’s seaborne oil trade. Of that, Saudi Arabia alone accounted for about 6.23 million barrels per day transiting Hormuz in 2025. Yes, Saudi Arabia has the East-West pipeline to Yanbu on the Red Sea, and the IEA estimates that only Saudi Arabia and the UAE have operational crude pipelines that can meaningfully bypass the Strait, with a combined 3.5 to 5.5 million barrels per day of alternative capacity. But that is the key point: the bypass capacity is limited compared with the scale of what normally moves through Hormuz. Riyadh can reroute some oil, but it cannot magically make the chokepoint disappear.
Saudi Arabia strengthens its position as the world's oil central bank.
Aramco announces East-West pipeline enables export rerouting up to ~7mb/d capacity. “We ramped up production through the East-West pipeline, which has a capacity up to 7 mb/d. Approximately 2 mb/d will be… pic.twitter.com/Gbha1eZyiL
— Daniel Lacalle (@dlacalle_IA) March 10, 2026
That is why oil is the real story here. Reuters reported that OPEC+ agreed on March 1 to raise output by 206,000 barrels per day for April, even as war with Iran disrupted Gulf shipments, and that Saudi Arabia had already been increasing production and exports by around 500,000 barrels per day in preparation for U.S. strikes. Yet the IEA also notes that the world’s spare crude production capacity was running at just over 4 million barrels per day in late 2025 and that this spare capacity is primarily held by Saudi Arabia. In other words, Saudi Arabia remains the swing producer, but the market is now being reminded that swing capacity is useless if export routes are threatened. Spare barrels in the ground do not calm a market when the shipping lanes are in question.
Aramco’s own numbers show why Saudi Arabia is still the central energy power in the region. The company reported adjusted net income of $104.7 billion for full-year 2025, operating cash flow of $136.2 billion, free cash flow of $85.4 billion, and capital investment of $52.2 billion in 2025, with 2026 capital spending guidance of $50 billion to $55 billion. That is not a weak state oil company limping along. That is a cash machine financing the kingdom’s geopolitical flexibility. But even Aramco has warned about the economic consequences if this war drags on, and reports today indicate the company is racing to redirect exports via Yanbu, which can handle around 5 million barrels per day versus the roughly 7 million barrels per day Saudi Arabia normally exports.
Saudi Arabia understands something Washington still refuses to admit. This is not a transitory war, and these are not transitory prices. Saudi Arabia is investing in the United States because capital always runs to the power center it believes can still protect it. It is buying Ukrainian anti-drone technology because the Iranian threat is no longer theoretical. It is helping the United States against Iran because if Tehran can intimidate the Gulf monarchies, the entire regional balance of power changes. And it is guarding its oil with extreme caution because oil is not merely revenue for Saudi Arabia. Oil is the kingdom’s strategic sovereignty.
The Democrats are taking to the media to declare that war could have been prevented has Kamala Harris won the election. That narrative is convenient politically, but it ignores what the politicians themselves actually said. The desire for confrontation with Iran has existed on both sides of the political spectrum for decades. The problem is not simply one president or one party. The problem is the bipartisan foreign policy establishment that has long treated Iran as the central strategic enemy in the Middle East. The neocons exist on both sides.
During the 2024 campaign, Kamala Harris herself made the position very clear. When asked which country she considered the United States’ greatest adversary, she replied that the answer was “Iran.” That statement alone shows how deeply the Iran war narrative had already taken hold in Washington. Once a country is publicly framed as the primary adversary, the policy direction becomes predictable. Sanctions escalate, proxy conflicts expand, and eventually military confrontation becomes increasingly likely.
Yet now many of the same politicians who previously described Iran as America’s top enemy are suddenly condemning the war. Harris has recently criticized the Trump administration’s actions toward Iran, arguing against the escalation of the conflict. The shift in tone is typical Washington politics. When out of power, politicians oppose the war. When in power, the same establishment often supports it. “Let me be clear,” Harris wrote in a statement shared on the social platform X. “I am opposed to a regime-change war in Iran, and our troops are being put in harm’s way for the sake of Trump’s war of choice.”
This is not new. Hillary Clinton made similar statements long before the current crisis. She repeatedly warned that Iran could not be allowed to obtain nuclear weapons and stated she would use military force if necessary. Clinton said directly that she would “not hesitate to use military force if Iran attempts to obtain a nuclear weapon.” She also famously warned that if Iran attacked Israel, the United States could “totally obliterate” Iran. Those statements were not coming from a fringe figure. They were coming from a former Secretary of State and a leading presidential candidate within the Democratic Party.
Congress has also been moving in the same direction for years. In 2007, the Senate passed a resolution targeting Iran and its Revolutionary Guard Corps that encouraged the use of “all instruments of United States national power” against Iran and its proxies. That resolution passed with broad bipartisan support. The point is simple: the groundwork for confrontation with Iran has been building inside Washington for a long time.
Even figures like Chuck Schumer have consistently taken a hard line against Tehran. Schumer publicly opposed the Obama administration’s nuclear agreement with Iran and warned that the deal posed a danger to U.S. and Israeli security. He argued that the Iranian regime could not be trusted and that stronger pressure was necessary to contain it. That position aligned him with a coalition of hawkish policymakers in both parties who have long advocated a much tougher strategy toward Iran.
The idea that only Republicans support confrontation with Iran is historically false. The reality is that the foreign policy establishment in Washington, the neoconservative wing, has long existed across both political parties. Some supported wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Others supported aggressive sanctions, regime-change policies, and military pressure against Iran.
What is troubling today is that this same mindset appears to be re-emerging inside the current administration as well. Many observers expected Trump to pursue a more restrained foreign policy after criticizing the wars of the past two decades. Yet, elements of the traditional interventionist establishment have gradually found their way back into positions of influence. When that happens, the policy outcomes often begin to resemble the very strategies Trump once criticized.
The uncomfortable truth is that the pressure for war with Iran has been bipartisan for a very long time. The neocon belief that American power should reshape the Middle East never belonged to only one party. It has existed across the entire political establishment. That is why the debate over who would or would not have gone to war with Iran misses the larger point. The forces pushing the United States toward conflict have been operating in Washington for decades, regardless of which party happens to occupy the White House.
The latest CPI report for February 2026 came in largely as expected, and, on the surface, Washington will likely celebrate the numbers. Consumer prices rose 0.3% for the month and 2.4% year-over-year. Core CPI, excluding food and energy, rose 0.2% for the month and is running at 2.5% annually. By the standards of the past few years, this appears relatively calm.
If we step back and look at the trend, inflation has certainly cooled from earlier levels. Throughout much of 2025, CPI was closer to the 2.7%–3% range. By January 2026, it had eased to 2.4%, and February simply held that same pace. That slowdown is exactly what the Federal Reserve has been trying to achieve with higher interest rates.
Yet when you dig beneath the headline numbers, the story becomes far less convincing. The cost of living continues to rise in the areas that impact people the most. Shelter prices are still increasing at roughly a 3% annual pace. Medical care costs have risen about 3.4% over the past year. Household furnishings and equipment are climbing near 4%. Even personal care products are rising faster than overall inflation. None of these categories shows any meaningful sign of reversing.
Food prices also rose again in February, up roughly 0.4% for the month, while apparel prices jumped more than 1%. These are the everyday items people notice when they go shopping, which is why so many households still feel inflation is far worse than official statistics suggest.
The February CPI data largely reflects price conditions before the latest geopolitical tensions escalated in the Middle East. Oil prices have already started moving higher following the growing confrontation with Iran, and gasoline prices have begun rising again as we move into March. Energy has been one of the biggest drivers of secondary inflation waves. When oil rises, it raises transportation costs, manufacturing costs, and eventually the cost of food distribution. That ripple effect tends to show up in the inflation data months later. Then you have war, which propels inflation faster than any other event.
The Fed is now stuck in a difficult position. Inflation is still above its 2% target, but the economy is clearly slowing and the labor market is beginning to soften. If energy prices continue to climb into the summer, the Fed may once again find itself chasing inflation that is being driven not by monetary policy but by geopolitics. Inflation is never purely about interest rates. It is always tied to global events, supply chains, and confidence in government policy.
QUESTION: Do you think Trump has been subjugated by the Neocons and Israel? Socrates picked the low on the Feb 26 before the war, five days later Lloyds cancels the insurance to spike oil higher. It peaked precisely on March 9 as Socrates forecast and then the next day was a Panic Cycle when Crude crashes. Was this all orchestrated for the London houses to make a fortune again?
FG
ANSWER: It has been alleged that Trump is subservient to Netanyahu and that the Neocons were attempting to make a fortune on the oil market by instigating war with Iran. I do believe that Netanyahu will take the blame for this war that I fear may be unwinnable like Afghanistan because it also is religious. It has further been alleged that Lloyds of London killing the insurance on shipping was to send oil prices to the Moon. The truth is that the International Group of P&I Clubs and its members (like Gard, Skuld, and NorthStandard) are NOT part of Lloyd’s of London. They are two entirely separate and distinct institutions in the London insurance market, though they have a close and long-standing working relationship.
The 26th was the low and crude began yielding buy signals two days in advance. Yes, Socrates picked the high and the crash with the Panic Cycle on the 10th. The computer clearly picked up in advance that the capital was flowing in anticipation of war in the Middle East. There was a Directional Change on the 25th, the day before the spike low ahead of the attack on the 28th.
The Neocons in the USA are not rejoicing for Trump suddenly becoming a warmonger. Killing the Ayatollah has been on Netanyahu’s wish list for probably longer than Trump has ever thought of becoming President. This no doubt Netanyahu’s war but that does not make it anti-Semitic. As I said, Netanyahu went to school in Philadelphia and hung out with the Kristols when in fact Irving Kristol is the godfather of the Neocons. This is an op-ed from John Bolton in the NY Times from 2015 Before Trump was president and it advocated bombing Iran.
That said, Bolton and other Neocons are not so happy because Trump is not actually listening to them and he is not using their playbook. There is another twist here and that is the businessman coming into this theatre.
Trump has told Netanyahu to stop targeting Iran’s oil infrastructure. Why? Trump is planning ahead despite what Bolton is saying. Trump knows with the goal of a regime change, he wants Iran to be able to enter the world economy and supply oil. That will be an economic incentive to replace the government. But more than just that, China gets about 80% of Iran’s oil. Taking out that capacity may invite China into the mix for their national security perspective.
It has been reported that the new Ayatollah has been the man behind a major property investor including house on Billionaire’s Row in London. He seems to have tried to hide his name directly but this goes back at least as far as 2011. The ties to London among the Islamic organizations have been there for decades.
Indeed, Trump keeps shifting his argument for why the war is happening, and how long it will last. Meanwhile, he understands that this can become a proxy war against the United States a drain our military assets rapidly. He is forced to into lifting sanctions on Russian oil and has said that he is defending the Strait of Horuz for everyone, including China, which is the largest oil importer and it takes about 80% of China’s oil.
The greatest danger here is not just that Iran causes a Middle East War with sleeper cells and proxies, but that Russia is also ready providing tactical info to Iran as the USA has been doing with Ukraine, and on to of that, destroying the Iranian infrastructure clearly runs the risk of bringing in China and even Pakistan.
