Authored by Steve Watson via Modernity.news,

They called it “Capture the Castle.” Not a picnic. Not a concert. Capture.

On Saturday morning a 1,000-year-old Norman fortress in Devon was wrapped in a 150-metre rainbow banner while organisers talked about occupying the ramparts and sending a message that the building now belongs to their cause. Nobody has to guess at the intent. They wrote it on the programme.

Totnes Castle sits at the highest point of the hilltop town. Founded around 1087 to lock down a crossing of the River Dart, it is one of England’s best-preserved motte-and-bailey strongholds, a Grade I listed site in the care of English Heritage. On 26 September, as part of a four-day Totnes Pride festival, some 400 people gathered in the grounds while around 30 flag-bearers unfurled the giant Pride flag across the ancient masonry. The spectacle was billed as the defining image of the weekend.

Pride group ‘captures’ 1,000-year-old Norman castle using massive rainbow flaghttps://t.co/3S8DPiUibv

— GB News (@GBNEWS) September 28, 2026

Ceri Goddard of Totnes Pride told the BBC they wanted the festival to be “a bit different,” and that covering “the iconic castle” would show that “queer people have always been here and we always will be.” She said English Heritage had been “amazing, helping us plan,” after a rehearsal to work through the logistics.

A Totnes Pride spokesman said: “Capture the Castle is the image that will define this year’s festival, but what we’ve built around it is a genuinely ambitious arts and culture programme – over 40 events.” The same statement talked of a town that “welcomes people from all walks of life.” Liberal Democrat MP Caroline Voaden praised the “scale, diversity and quality of the Pride festival Totnes has produced,” and said it was “sending a clear message of equality and inclusion.”

That is one reading. Another is the language the organisers chose for themselves. Their own programme invited people to “storm the Castle grounds,” described local flag-bearers who would “invade” the ramparts, and framed the morning as the “most visible, bold and important civic moment” of the weekend.

They literally called it ‘capture the castle’. Ideological occupation. pic.twitter.com/JaSTE2zrhz

— Paul Joseph Watson (@PrisonPlanet) September 27, 2026

Some residents were appalled. Local Ian Robinson wrote: “950 years of Norman history, medieval warfare, royal decrees and Civil War – all leading up to the moment we thought: ‘You know what this ancient castle really needs? A 150-metre rainbow flag’. Because apparently nine and a half centuries of heritage wasn’t quite colourful enough. Still, at least the tea room survived long enough to witness the decline.”

Roofer Russell Blackaller, who works on listed buildings, pointed out the double standard inside planning law itself. People in Grade II houses, he said, “require formal consent sometimes purely to erect a scaffolding.” Yet a Grade I monument was draped “purely to have a celebration.”

Courtney Soleil put the civic point cleanly: “No one is saying people shouldn’t be free to live as they choose, but not every historic landmark needs to be turned into a statement for the cause of the moment. This is a 950-year-old Norman castle and part of Britain’s shared heritage.” Historic monuments, she argued, should represent that shared history rather than “continually being used to promote one particular cause.”

Christian Concern chief executive Andrea Minichiello Williams told The Telegraph: “The castle may have been captured in history, but today it is the town itself that feels captured – not by an army, but by an ideology that has taken hold of its public spaces and its culture, leaving little room for anyone who dares to disagree.”

Restore Britain’s Rupert Lowe was no gentler: “It is not ‘homophobic’ to label this as wildly naff and generally vomit-inducing.” He added: “Sensible gay people despise the woke theatre of it all too, and just want to get on with their lives.”

Totnes, Devon. Listen, I’m as gay as the hills, but this is taking the proverbial. It’s an eyesore that the residents have to suffer.

We ought to be venerating our heritage and inheritance, not demanding it bend to modern ideological virtue signalling.

It makes a mockery of us. pic.twitter.com/Jdu6kxzltw

— Darren Grimes (@darrengrimes) September 27, 2026

If it had of been the Union Flag it would have been removed post-haste.

— ron (@RonIGeordie) September 28, 2026

Indeed, in 2016 Totnes council took down a Union Flag because it was deemed “too noisy” when it flapped in the wind. In 2015 a planned permanent rainbow crossing was blocked by Devon County Council on traffic-safety grounds, but the instinct of the activists was already clear: the civic surface of the town is a canvas, except when the paint is red, white and blue.

Most people don’t give a fuck what your sexual orientation is as long as you don’t go near kids. Nowadays this pride stuff is more about “look at me” and attention seeking and trying to promote gayness amongst children which is all very strange.

— Danny Boy (@DannyDoy2022) September 28, 2026

F*ck me the whole month of June isn’t enough for them.

— REJECT DIGITAL ID (@John_Wick888) September 28, 2026

Typical of the left, they throw around the words of diversity and equality, yet meet anyone who disagrees with hate and violence. This goes against the very essence of equality and diversity when so many other feelings are ignored and attacked.

— Testy McTestFace (@TheDrunkTester) September 28, 2026

Flying a British or English flag from that same castle would, of course, be treated as a provocation. Across the country the pattern is no longer subtle. Britain’s biggest council has gone to the High Court seeking an injunction that could put people in prison for two years for attaching Union Flags and St George’s Crosses to highway furniture, while Pakistan, Palestine, Somalia, India and Jamaica flags have been hosted, lit up, or left flying.

English Heritage helped plan this latest rainbow eyesore. A sitting MP turned up to bless it. The keep that survived the Civil War is now a billboard for a faction that talks about invasion as if that were charming.

The national flags of the country that built the place are the ones that get the injunctions, the noise complaints, and the lectures about “community cohesion.”

A doctor in the Netherlands euthanized a toddler in what officials said is the country’s first case involving a child under 12, and a government-appointed review panel concluded the physician acted “with due care.”

The child, who was nearly 2 years old and suffering from severe medical conditions, died at the end of 2025, with details only becoming public this month after the supervising committee issued its finding.

The child was born at 26 weeks, suffered brain damage, and was later diagnosed with spastic cerebral palsy and a severe form of infant epilepsy, according to the report. The child’s parents requested termination of life after the attending physician concluded the child’s suffering was unbearable and without hope of improvement.

Independent doctors first consulted in the case concluded the child was not in continuous unbearable suffering and that reasonable alternatives still existed. Rather than stopping there, the attending physician sought another opinion, and a second doctor signed off. The first consultants said palliative options and different medication might improve control of the child’s epileptic seizures. The official report did not say death was imminent; it said the child’s life expectancy was shortened and depended on potentially life-threatening complications.

Until 2024, Dutch rules covered termination of life for newborns and separate euthanasia requests from minors age 12 and older. A special regulation that took effect in 2024 created a framework for termination of life in children under 12, subject to strict medical-review requirements.

News of the Dutch case comes days after a shocking report from Canada, where an 83-year-old Christian grandmother in Ontario was euthanized under the country’s Medical Assistance in Dying program this summer, and her family said she never gave her final consent.

Brigitte Stegemann died by lethal injection on July 10 at The Pearl, a care home in Cannifton, Ontario, after being diagnosed with Stage IV stomach cancer. Relatives said Stegemann, a devout Christian, had already turned down MAID because it went against her faith, telling them, “No, I don’t want that,” and that her wish was to die naturally.

Stegemann’s granddaughter and longtime caregiver, Brigitte Kranendonk, said the process moved forward anyway and sped up while she was away on vacation.

Meanwhile…

Canada is advertising assisted suicide.

This is absolutely horrific. pic.twitter.com/BwNu8Pax5a

— LifeNews.com (@LifeNewsHQ) September 28, 2026

Authored by Guy Birchall via The Epoch Times,

The South Korean Ministry of Foreign Affairs summoned Ukraine’s acting ambassador to the country on Sept. 28 to convey Seoul’s displeasure over Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s revelation that two North Korean prisoners of war had been transferred to South Korea.

South Korean First Vice Minister Park Yun-ju told acting Ukrainian Ambassador Andriy Beshkin that despite a clear agreement to keep the repatriation confidential, Kyiv unilaterally revealed the move during Zelenskyy’s speech to the U.N. General Assembly (UNGA) last week, according to South Korean news agency Yonhap.

The ministry further expressed strong regret over the Ukrainian Presidential Press Office’s denial of the existence of the private agreement and has demanded an official explanation and apology from Kyiv, saying such actions seriously undermine trust between the two governments.

The Epoch Times contacted the South Korean and Ukrainian foreign ministries for comment but did not receive responses by publication time.

Zelenskyy revealed that the North Korean prisoners had been transferred to South Korea during his address to the UNGA on Sept. 23.

“Recently, we sent two North Korean prisoners of war to the Republic of Korea,” Zelenskyy said in his address to the United Nations.

“These guys are not easy to capture alive. One of them, when he realized he was going to be taken prisoner, tried to kill himself. And he was shocked that fate didn’t let him die.

“This is how they raise people in the North. It’s reality. They take away their freedom. They take away their right to choose. And they drill into them that they must die, no matter what.”

Since then, South Korean President Lee Jae Myung and his office have alleged that Ukraine breached a nondisclosure agreement between Seoul and Kyiv, designed to keep the transfer secret and protect the soldiers from potential repercussions.

Lee said in an X post the day after Zelenskyy’s remarks to the U.N. that “state affairs should be conducted for the country and the people, not for the interests or popularity of the government or those in power.”

“Of course there were internal arguments for disclosing the fact that the North Korean prisoners had been brought to South Korea, since it would clearly have helped recover the government’s approval ratings,” Lee said, but noted that “considering the various problems that disclosure would create, keeping it confidential was appropriate in every respect, and that is what was agreed.”

He labeled the revelation about the prisoners’ transfer “cruel and irresponsible,” saying that he did not “know what circumstances the Ukrainian side may have had in disclosing this in violation of the confidentiality agreement, but it is deeply regrettable.”

In a later statement from the South Korean Presidential Office on Sept. 27, senior presidential secretary for public relations Seong Ghi-hong also expressed “strong regret” over Zelenskyy’s disclosure of the repatriation and the subsequent denial of any confidentiality agreement, according to Yonhap.

Seong said the Ukrainian government had asked for confidentiality, as the revelation could spark domestic criticism over Kyiv giving up the chance to exchange the North Korean prisoners for Ukrainian prisoners held by Russia.

Seoul agreed to keep the repatriation confidential because of security, diplomatic, and humanitarian concerns, including the safety of the prisoners and their families still in the north, he said.

Ukraine captured the two North Koreans in Russia’s Kursk region in January 2025, with Zelenskyy at the time describing the pair as the first North Korean soldiers to be captured alive since Pyongyang sent troops to fight alongside Moscow’s forces.

Over the past two decades, domestic robots like robot vacuums and lawn-mowing robots have evolved from gimmicks for tech lovers to actual mass-market products.

Today, these automated little helpers are capable of performing household chores as good as, if not better than humans, freeing up valuable time for their owners to focus on more important things such as (paid) work, family or leisure activities.

With advancements in technology, domestic robots have not only become smarter and more efficient, but also become a lot more affordable, with decent vacuum robots now available for just a couple hundred dollars.

As more households embrace smart technologies, the demand for these robots continues to grow, promising a future where mundane chores are handled effortlessly, leaving homeowners (and renters) with more time to enjoy the finer things in life.

As Statista’s Felix Richter reports, according to Statista Consumer Insights, adoption of vacuum and lawn-mowing robots is still limited, though, with fewer than 1 in 5 respondents in each surveyed market calling either of the two their own.

You will find more infographics at Statista

Interestingly, domestic robots are particularly unpopular in South Korea and Japan – two of the countries with the highest density of industrial robots.

Authored by Steve Watson via Modernity.news,

Children as young as seven are being sat down in British classrooms and told to list the “positive” aspects of migration – and only the positives. No pressure on housing. No wages. No hotels. No community strain. Just the approved script.

Show Racism the Red Card, which brands itself the UK’s “leading anti-racism charity,” has produced lesson plans that treat migration as an unalloyed good.

Pupils are being handed headlines such as “how many more migrants can we take?” and instructed to rewrite them in a cheerier register – “migrant workers bring fresh hope to British economy” is the model answer. The materials describe the exercise as “an opportunity to explore what is positive and good about migration.”

Children as young as seven are being taught that migration is a “positive” force in Britain by a charity whose funding was cancelled by a Reform council

? https://t.co/ZXpVRO0jOH pic.twitter.com/XfVNUlbTuU

— The Telegraph (@Telegraph) September 27, 2026

It’s pure insidious indoctrination.

The same packs tell British kids that women and children make up 80 per cent of refugees worldwide. They do not mention that adult men account for around three-quarters of those landing on British beaches in small boats.

Pupils are told it is “false” to claim most people fleeing their countries are adult men. They are told asylum seekers survive on £6.42 a day and are banned from working. They are not told what hotels, HMO placements and the rest of the support system actually cost.

Listed “benefits” include filling vacancies, plugging skills shortages, propping up social care and closing the “pension gap” with young foreign workers. There is no matching column for crowded classrooms, GP waiting lists, suppressed wages at the bottom end, or what happens when too many people arrive too fast into towns that never voted for any of it.

Sunderland’s Reform-led council has now ended a 30-year relationship with the group. Council leader Christopher Eynon said the authority would no longer back “politically charged organisations with an agenda.”

Labour Party chairman Bridget Phillipson called the cut “misguided, cruel and in no way backed by the people of Sunderland.” Nigel Farage took the opposite view: “As ever an innocuous sounding organisation has a hard-Left agenda.“

The lesson catalogue goes well beyond migration. It covers activism, Black History Month, the meaning and purpose of demonstrations, Windrush, Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities, “what makes a happy home,” how to support people experiencing racism, anti-Semitism, and racism in online gaming, which the plans call “extremely common.”

Anti-racism is one thing. Turning seven-year-olds into activists for a live political project is quite another.

The charity’s own “Migration. Making Britain Great” programme was built to “counter and alter the negative narrative surrounding migration.” That is the point. Not to weigh evidence. To alter the narrative.

A Department for Education spokesman said pupils should receive “a balanced presentation of opposing views on political topics,” and that schools must promote fundamental British values. “This isn’t optional, it’s the law.” The SRTRC packs do not look like balance. They look like one side of an argument, laminated and handed out as fact.

The same project has been running through British schools for years.

More than 1,100 schools and nurseries signed up to City of Sanctuary’s Schools of Sanctuary scheme. Suggested reading for children as young as five includes Kind by Alison Green, which tells pupils that people who “had to leave their homes and their countries because of danger” are “brave and amazing,” then offers the line: “Sometimes people say there’s no room for anyone more. But maybe you can say ‘There’s plenty of room! Come on in!‘”

Everybody’s Welcome by Patricia Hegarty is even blunter: “Everybody’s welcome, no matter who they are, wherever they may come from, whether near or far.”

Then-shadow education secretary Laura Trott slammed the findings, stating “Classrooms should be places of learning not promoting political ideology.” She added, “Portraying the arrival of small boats as a positive thing in books for children as young as five is indoctrination, this is an illegal practice.” The organisation’s aim, she noted, was to turn pupils into “ethically informed change makers.”

The far left Green Party went further. A leaked dossier called for a Department of Migration to push into classrooms “the need for and moral obligation of asylum and humanitarian protection.” Not an argument. A moral obligation – taught to children who cannot yet vote.

The BBC opened another door. Pro-migrant charity Heard, which has taken seed support linked to George Soros’s Open Society Foundations, met producers of the CBBC show Pickle Storm – a comedy about a young “alien” fleeing persecution and settling in a British town.

Heard described the work as a way to “tap into children’s media and directly impact framing of migration in children’s content.” The corporation claimed the group “had no power to influence editing or production.”

Picture books. Lesson plans. Children’s television. All are amplifying the same narrative.

While seven-year-olds are told to accentuate the positive, boats in the English Channel have delivered an army.

Home Office figures put small-boat arrivals since Labour took office on 4 July 2024 at 83,279. Regular Army strength sits at 83,000. Shadow home secretary Chris Philp put it plainly: “Labour has let an entire army-sized population cross the Channel illegally. More people have arrived in small boats than we have soldiers defending Britain. That is completely bonkers.”

Former Royal Navy officer Chris Parry said Labour’s intake amounted to six-and-a-half divisions of fighting-age men. “That’s more divisions than were in the Allied assault wave on D-Day.” Almost 90 per cent of those intercepted since 2018 have been male; two-thirds aged 18 to 39.

Farage, writing after another surge of landings, said: “It is utterly insane.” Ordinary Britons, he added, “rightly ask if successive governments cannot stop people from arriving illegally in broad daylight… then what exactly is the point of having a border?”

Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood has herself warned that the UK’s “generous” benefits and asylum support system is “drawing illegal migrants across the Channel.” The Home Office says significant numbers of those in the boats are economic migrants. That is the adult conversation. The classroom version skips it.

Nobody needs a think tank paper to decode this. Charities write the worksheets. Schools deliver them. Broadcasters soften the story for the same age group. Parties draft “moral obligation” into education policy. And the raw numbers keep arriving on beaches.

The children being trained to rewrite “how many more can we take” will inherit the housing queue, the school places and the social care system those arrivals load. They are not being equipped to judge that. They are being equipped to applaud it.

When Anthropic confidentially submitted its draft S-1 to the SEC back in June, it was clear there were many shocking numbers in the IPO prospectus which the company did not want made public amid speculation of massive ongoing losses, but few were prepared for what was leaked today to Reuters. 

According to a copy of the IPO prospectus leaked by Reuters, Anthropic is making a massive bet that AI will transform the global economy more profoundly than industrialization, electricity and ​the internet. But, as Reuters correctly puts it, “the cost to get there will be staggering” – the company reported a net loss of $42 billion in 2025. And while revenue grew 12-fold in 2025 to nearly $4.6 billion, the company lost more than $8 billion on an operating basis, with compute spend soaring to $7.33 billion, accounting for 58% of its $12.65 billion in total operating expenses. 

In other words, Anthropic lost almost $2 for every dollar it made in sales, and that trend is accelerating. 

It gets worse: not only is the company’s revenue fleeting, it is controlled by just two customers on the margin. Anthropic said nearly a quarter of its revenue came from just two customers last year, and as part of its risk factors, warned that many of its largest clients were not locked into long-term contracts and could cut or stop spending.

But what is most concerning is the confirmation of what we said back in July: it was back then we laid out the reason behind the forceful push by the frontier models to commence regulatory capture against open-weight models, which we framed as follows: 

The problem with the $2 trillion in circular AI financing is that it is all contingent on the frontiers (Anthropic/ OpenAI) being money good on their $1.5+TN in unfunded commitments. Which they won’t be if Chinese open LLMs grab market share. Hence the push against Chinese LLMs.

We doubled down on the massive amount of “unfunded spending commitments” by the big two frontier models, Anthropic and OpenAI, one month later when in response to the FT catching up to our previous reporting, we said that “Again: that $3 trillion in “unfunded spending commitments” (thank you AI SPVs) will never get funded when token prices for closed models collapse to open levels“

Again: that $3 trillion in “unfunded spending commitments” (thank you AI SPVs) will never get funded when token prices for closed models collapse to open levels https://t.co/HtVgODzRUr

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) August 14, 2026

In other words, $1.5 trillion each, and about a third of that through 2030, or $500 billion in spending commitments. 

Well, as Reuters reports, Anthropic’s massive unfunded spending obligations (for a detailed analysis of why this matters a lot, read “The Off-Balance Sheet Time Bomb Inside AI Hits $3.1 Trillion: Up $1.3TN In Three Months“) are precisely what we said they are to wit: Anthropic “plans to spend $518 billion on cloud, computing and infrastructure obligations in coming year, according to the prospectus.”

The problem: Anthropic already has massive amounts in (mostly) off-balance sheet debt, having stacked over $71 billion through special purpose vehicles to finance Google TPU chips. It also has a $15 billion credit facility and likely has many more unreported, off-balance sheet funding scheme that we are not aware of. 

And to fund it all the frontier AI company had just $20.3 billion in cash as of Dec 31, 2025, a number which has likely declined if the company was forced recently to draw down on a secured credit facility. 

Hence the urgency to raise a lot of capital as suddenly the well is looking awfully dry. The problem, of course, as we have discussed repeatedly is that Anthropic is coming to market at the worst possible time: just as token costs plunge to record lows…

Token prices new record lows pic.twitter.com/h2yG6kST4x

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) September 18, 2026

… while demand for frontier tokens has slowed substantially for the first time ever (light blue line), with Chinese open-weight models grabbing market share thanks to their cheap, just as efficient models.

Needless to say, this could prove to be a disastrous combination for Anthropic. 

Yes, there is Jevons paradox of course, but it is of little comfort to Anthropic if the only beneficiary of Jevons are Chinese models, and potentially Meta after the blistering launch of its Muse agentic platform. This is how Goldman framed the big problem for Dario Amodei (full report available to pro subs):

“Token demand growth will need to outpace declining token prices to support continued growth in investment spending. Frontier models are currently a key source of demand for hyperscaler compute. However, the rise of competitive open-source models has contributed to a decline in average token prices. Measures of frontier token demand slowed in July…” 

These rapid and adverse changes in the AI landscape explain why both Anthropic and OpenAI are desperate to go public and raise much needed capital to plug at least partially the massive holes that have opened – one can only imagine the panic that will ensue among the hyperscaler ecosystem if it becomes obvious that the two primary sources of future spending commitments across the entire AI world, Anthropic and OpenAI are in fact, not money good. 

And yet, realizing just how challenging raising capital would be, OpenAI has already pushed back its IPO to 2027, leaving just Anthropic with hopes of going public this year. However, Reuters reported recently that Anthropic’s public market debut is likely to be pushed to after the November US midterm elections; and if the very anti-AI Democrats  sweep congress, the IPO will likely be shelved indefinitely.

There’s more bad news: not only is the company incinerating cash, it may suddenly find itself stuck rolling out new models, allowing Chinese open-labs to catch up. In recent days, Anthropic has confronted – and disclosed – evidence from its own research that ⁠increasingly autonomous AI models can behave in unexpected and potentially harmful ways, including sabotaging code, assisting fraud and manipulating information in controlled tests.

As a result of similar activity, OpenAI – which also confidentially filed for its own IPO in June – earlier announced it would scrap the release of its latest AI model – GPT-6.1 Astra  – because, as the WSJ reported, the model  “performed poorly on tests measuring alignment, or how well the model adheres to what humans would like it to do. Specifically, GPT-6.1 Astra showed higher levels of deception: It wasn’t always honest about telling users of the actions it did or didn’t take…. Another issue was what OpenAI calls “scope authorization,” meaning that GPT-6.1 Astra would push ahead on a task without asking the user for permission, and would at times reach for external tools and services even if it might be unsafe.”

How can any company, and especially one which has been in the Trump admin’s sights for much of the past year, possibly hope to come to market in expectations of a $2+ trillion valuation? The answer is it can’t, which is why we are now getting various trial balloons setting the stage for the first of many delays. 

Meanwhile, the cash burn continues and there will come a point where either existing investors will have to throw much more good money after bad, or Dario will have to ram the IPO through, and risk a spectacular crash in the stock price. 

Authored by Mike Adams via NaturalNews.com,

The era when America’s above-ground infrastructure could be considered safe is now over. The drone revolution has quietly dismantled that assumption, and I believe we are dangerously unprepared for the era of distributed drone warfare.

The same precision-strike capability that hit Saudi pipelines and Qatari gas trains can be replicated here by lone actors or small cells, and it doesn’t take much in the way of manufacturing technology for a small group to accomplish this. Pointing this out is not alarmism. It is a straightforward consequence of the availability of cheap guidance systems, open-source know-how, and a vast, undefended homeland.

During my recent interview with Matt Bracken on Alex Jones, we discussed how the rise of decentralized drone warfare represents an existential threat to a nation that has never seriously defended its homeland. We examined the vulnerability of critical infrastructure, the evolution of drone technology and autonomy, the democratization of warfare, and the profound risks of artificial intelligence. Every one of those topics deserves far more attention than it is getting. I believe our national security establishment continues to underestimate this threat, and that refusal to confront it head-on will eventually be paid for in blood.

We no longer live in a world where only nation-states can wage war. The technology that once belonged exclusively to superpowers now sits in the hands of anyone with a credit card and a grudge. I have argued repeatedly that the hollowing out of America’s industrial and defense base, combined with the proliferation of cheap autonomous systems, has created a perfect storm that virtually guarantees a domestic attack sooner or later. The question is not whether drones will be used against American infrastructure, but when.

Our Glass House: The Vulnerability of Critical Infrastructure

America’s refineries, pipelines, power grids, and data centers are, unfortunately, wide open. They sit in plain sight, mapped by publicly available satellite imagery, and their locations are cataloged in government databases that have long since been compromised. Anyone with insider knowledge or even rudimentary research skills can identify single points of failure that would cause chaos for millions of people. The vulnerability is not theoretical; it is a matter of public record.

The recent Joliet refinery incident is a perfect illustration of how fragile our systems have become. When that refinery went down, it triggered a diesel panic and sent shockwaves through the regional fuel supply chain. Imagine that same scenario replicated across a dozen refineries simultaneously. The economic fallout would be catastrophic, and our current strategies for defending these sprawling assets are nothing short of inadequate. You cannot surround hundreds of square miles of pipeline with barbed wire and armed guards.

Russia has already recognized this reality. Its government authorized its central bank and Sberbank to operate anti-drone systems and arm personnel to defend financial infrastructure, effectively turning bankers into air-defense operators. Putin even moved to allow the state to temporarily seize commercial critical infrastructure that is not sufficiently protected from drone strikes. I find it telling that Russia, which we are supposed to consider our inferior, is adapting to this threat while our own officials issue warnings but do nothing. The FBI has publicly acknowledged that cheap commercial drones now pose a significant threat to U.S. security and the homeland, and that low-cost drones can kill personnel and damage critical infrastructure. That warning should have been a wake-up call. Instead, it has been largely ignored.

From Toys to Terminators: The Evolution of Drone Warfare

The drones of a decade ago were toys. The drones of today are weapons of precision warfare, and the drones of tomorrow will be autonomous killing machines. DARPA has been developing armies of drones for intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance missions for years, with biologically inspired robotic systems that fly. While micro air vehicles fly slow and low, DARPA’s hypersonic stealth drones fly high and fast, with the armed Falcon HTV-2 launched from a rocket and designed to travel at Mach 20.

The Ukraine war has served as an accelerant for this technology. Both sides have deployed drone swarms, AI-enabled targeting systems, and kamikaze drones on a scale never before seen in combat. Russia has used Geran-2 and Geran-4 Seeker drones equipped with artificial intelligence to strike Ukrainian ports and shipping. For its part, Ukraine has launched swarm attacks involving hundreds of drones at a time, with Russia’s Defense Ministry reporting 519 UAVs shot down in a single night across more than twenty regions. This is the new face of war.

Autonomous drones represent a quantum leap beyond remote-controlled systems. Once a drone can identify and engage targets without a human pilot, jamming becomes irrelevant, and the decision loop shrinks from seconds to milliseconds. Glenn Diesen has noted that the emphasis in military affairs could shift back toward quantity with low-cost military hardware such as swarms and other inexpensive weapons platforms, making it possible to create mass effects without mass armies. And the technology is only getting cheaper and more accessible. The barrier to entry for building a lethal drone is now measured in thousands of dollars, not millions.

The Democratization of Destruction: Anyone Can Now Wage War

The monopoly on advanced weaponry that nation-states enjoyed for centuries is eroding before our eyes. Non-state actors, terrorists, cartels, and even lone individuals can now potentially build or buy lethal drones capable of destroying critical infrastructure and killing large numbers of people. This is the true democratization of destruction, and it is irreversible.

The cost asymmetry is devastating. A $30,000 drone can require $4 million missiles to defend against, and even then, the defender loses the economic exchange every time. Iran launched some 550 drones at Israel since the war began, according to the Institute of National Security Studies, alongside hundreds of ballistic missiles. Gulf states intercepted more than 1,500 Iranian missiles and drones in a single defensive operation but still suffered casualties and damage. When the attacker spends tens of thousands and the defender spends millions, the math favors the attacker every single time. Israel’s experience with cheap and elusive drones underscores how they put incessant pressure on even the most sophisticated air defenses.

I have long argued that this decentralization of warfare means we must rethink defense and security entirely. The old model, where a handful of government agencies and military commands protect the entire homeland, is obsolete. When a single individual can launch a drone from a rooftop and take out a substation, the idea that centralized authorities will save us becomes laughable. Every American needs to understand that we are now living in an era where warfare has been democratized, and the defenses have not kept pace.

A Call to Awareness and Preparedness

We must wake up to the reality that our infrastructure is vulnerable and the threat is growing every day. The incidents in Belgium, where unidentified drones forced the complete shutdown of Brussels and Liege airports, demonstrate how a simple technology can paralyze key national systems. The mysterious drone swarms that breached restricted airspace at Barksdale Air Force Base in Louisiana, home to B-52 bombers, show that even our most sensitive military installations are not immune. These are not random events; they are warnings.

Decentralization of technology cuts both ways. It can empower individuals to defend themselves and their communities, but it also enables attackers who wish to do harm. I believe the only solution is to decentralize our defenses, embrace resilience, and prepare ourselves for a world of decentralized machine cognition. This means building redundant systems, stockpiling essential supplies, and developing community-level response capabilities. It means understanding that the cavalry is not coming, and that our survival depends on our own preparation. The government that has failed to protect us from pandemics, economic collapse, and foreign adversaries is not going to protect us from drone swarms.

The time to prepare is now, before we face a catastrophic attack. I urge every reader to take this threat seriously, to educate themselves about the vulnerabilities in their own communities, and to take concrete steps toward self-reliance (such as building an off-grid solar system so you still have power when the grid goes down). Learn about drones, understand how they work, and consider how you would respond to a prolonged infrastructure outage. Support independent platforms like NaturalNews.com that tell the truth about these threats. Start growing your own food, storing water, and building the networks of trust that will carry us through crisis. The window for preparation is still open, but it is closing fast.

The Department of Justice (DOJ) asked the U.S. Supreme Court on Sept. 24 to revive its third-country deportation program that sends deportees to countries that were not named in their removal orders.

The Trump administration has said it removes individuals to third countries when it cannot quickly return them to their home countries.

However, critics say the policy is used to bypass legal restrictions and deter illegal immigration.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) policy, adopted in March 2025, allows immigration officials to deport foreign nationals in as little as six hours.

The Supreme Court has already ruled in favor of the program twice on its emergency docket.

As Matthew Vadum further reports via The Epoch Times, following Supreme Court rules, the application is addressed to Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson because she oversees emergency appeals from decisions of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.

However, U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer took the unusual step of asking Jackson to refer the stay request to the full court instead of ruling on it herself if she will not freeze the lower court’s order.

Jackson voted against the government both times when the litigation previously came before the high court.

Sauer said lower court decisions were throwing into chaos the delicate arrangements the government has negotiated with other nations to take in deportees who are not their citizens.

“Third-country removals require careful negotiation with foreign governments, which are rarely enthusiastic about accepting foreign citizens (especially criminals), and often requires obtaining travel documents and devoting significant manpower to the staging of flights to protect government officers and flight crews,” he said.

Disrupting those plans “imposes massive costs on the government,” and forces it to engage in new instances of diplomatic engagement with countries “who may be all the more skeptical of our removal efforts given the disruption.”

The filing concerns a First Circuit ruling from Sept. 18 that struck down DHS guidance allowing removal based on diplomatic assurances that receiving countries will not persecute or torture people sent to them.

The three-judge panel raised concerns about “blanket assurances” from third countries that promise U.S. deportees won’t be tortured or persecuted, saying this promise is not sufficient and does not properly allow foreign nationals to raise persecution or torture concerns.

The panel affirmed the final judgment U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy issued Feb. 25 vacating the DHS guidance. In its Sept. 18 decision, it affirmed the striking down of the policy.

Murphy previously certified the respondents, who are people with final removal orders, as a nationwide class.

The respondents argue that the government may deport a removable noncitizen to a willing third country, but not without inquiring about whether the person would be persecuted or tortured in that country.

The case is known as DHS v. D.V.D.

On Sept. 24, Jackson did not respond to Sauer’s request. Instead, she directed the other side to file a response to the application by 4 p.m. on Sept. 28.

Via Middle East Eye

For more than two decades, Iraq’s oil wealth has passed through a financial system centered thousands of miles away in New York. The arrangement, created after the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, was initially designed to protect Iraqi oil revenues from creditors and help fund reconstruction.

Today, it gives Washington significant leverage over Iraq’s access to its own dollars, leverage that the US is increasingly using as it pressures Baghdad to curb Iran’s influence and the activities of armed groups aligned with Tehran. The issue came into sharp focus in April, when Washington blocked a shipment of about $500m in cash to Iraq as it pressured the government over Iran-aligned armed groups. 

Muayen al-Kadhimi, a former parliamentary Finance Committee member, condemned the decision at the time, calling on the government to end what he described as US dominance over Iraqi funds. “The US decision to freeze or delay sending Iraq’s foreign currency entitlements represents a serious violation of the financial and political sovereignty of the Iraqi state,” al-Kadhimi said.

The shipment was later restored, but the episode demonstrated how Iraq’s dependence on the US financial system can be used as a political tool.

The arrangement began after the US-led invasion in May 2003, when the Coalition Provisional Authority established the Development Fund for Iraq (DFI) to collect the country’s oil revenues and use them for reconstruction and humanitarian needs. Under UN Security Council Resolution 1483, issued in May 2003, Iraqi oil and gas revenues were transferred to a special account in the name of the Central Bank of Iraq at the US Federal Reserve.

Five percent of the revenues were deducted for compensation to Kuwait following Iraq’s 1990 invasion. The system also included frozen assets belonging to Saddam Hussein’s former government and surplus funds from the UN’s Oil-for-Food program.

The arrangement was intended in part to protect Iraqi assets from international creditors pursuing claims dating back to Saddam’s rule. An International Advisory and Monitoring Board, including representatives from the UN, IMF, World Bank and Arab Fund for Economic and Social Development, was established to oversee the fund.

The UN-backed system ended in 2011 at the request of the Iraqi government but Iraq’s oil revenues remained tied to the Federal Reserve.

A new account, known as IRAQ2, was established at the New York Fed. Oil revenues are deposited there before being transferred to the Central Bank of Iraq. At the same time, Iraq lost the comprehensive international protection previously provided under the UN system and became dependent on annual US executive orders granting immunity to its sovereign funds.

So while the formal international arrangement changed, the underlying dependence on the US financial system remained.

Why can’t Iraq simply move its money?

Iraqi oil is priced overwhelmingly in US dollars, while the country depends heavily on the currency for imports and international trade. Iraq also has about $40bn in unsettled external debts, creating concerns that moving its funds outside the existing system could expose them to claims from creditors.

Ahmed Saddam, an associate professor of economics at the University of Basra, told Middle East Eye that keeping the Central Bank of Iraq’s account in New York has important benefits. “I believe that the most important advantages of keeping the Central Bank of Iraq’s account in New York are protecting Iraqi oil revenues from being seized by creditors of the former regime, since the debts are estimated at tens of billions of dollars.”

“The second advantage is facilitating the sale of oil and the settlement of Iraq’s international trade; this account reduces transfer costs, and we should not forget that the dollar is the most widely used currency in international transactions.”

But Saddam said the arrangement also leaves Iraq vulnerable to US pressure. “As for the most prominent disadvantages, they lie in the ability of the US authorities to impose their influence by restricting access to dollars to Iraq, for example, and this means there is no real financial independence.”

According to Saddam, Iraq could sell its oil in euros or Chinese yuan, provided there were no binding conditions in its oil contracts, but even then that would not necessarily free Iraq from the dollar. “Even if that happens, the price will remain linked to the dollar because oil is priced in dollars, and what happens in practice is that the buyer pays the value in a non-dollar currency after converting it according to the dollar exchange rate.”

Iraq would still need dollars for much of its international trade, Saddam said, while shifting currencies could expose the country to exchange-rate losses and political pressure from Washington. His proposal was therefore diversification rather than an immediate break with the US system.

“I believe that Iraq’s financial independence will not be achieved if we assume moving the Central Bank of Iraq’s account from the United States to another country.”

“In my view, financial independence can be achieved by opening multiple sovereign accounts outside the United States while keeping the current account in New York. For example, the Central Bank could open an account with the European Central Bank, as well as with central banks in East Asia,” Saddam said.

The war on Iran is squeezing Iraq’s economy as disrupted oil exports cut revenues, while costlier imports and a weaker dinar drive up prices, exposing the country’s reliance on oil and foreign goods.

🔗: https://t.co/SreYBiH9L5 pic.twitter.com/8LZNo9gWz2

— Al Jazeera English (@AJEnglish) September 26, 2026

“Part of Iraq’s oil could also be sold in euros and yuan, let us assume only 15–20 percent, while the remaining 80–85 percent is sold in US dollars. In addition, financial independence requires developing the banking system in Iraq by expanding direct correspondent banking relationships with major banks in Europe and Asia,” he added.

How is the system being used against Iran?

The financial arrangement has taken on greater importance as Washington seeks to squeeze Iran economically and target armed groups in Iraq that are aligned with Tehran. Iraq has close political, economic and security ties with Iran, while several powerful armed groups operate inside the country.

For Washington, that has made Iraq’s financial system a key battleground in its efforts to restrict the flow of dollars to Iran. The US has accused Iraqi banks, exchange companies and other financial networks of exploiting the country’s financial system to move dollars towards sanctioned entities.

Since the US and Israel launched their war on Iran, Washington has responded by tightening its oversight of Iraq’s access to the dollar and pressuring Baghdad to bring its financial system into line with US sanctions.

In early 2025, Iraq ended its long-running dollar auction system, formally known as the foreign currency window, after sustained US pressure. The system had allowed private banks and exchange companies to obtain dollars from the Central Bank of Iraq in exchange for Iraqi dinars.

But Washington’s leverage extends beyond Iraq’s banking system to the physical movement of dollars into the country. The April suspension of the $500m shipment was particularly significant because the cash was generated from Iraq’s own oil revenues.

Although electronic dollar transfers for international trade continued, the episode showed that Washington could restrict access to physical dollars when it wanted to pressure Baghdad.

The Iraqi government has sought to maintain its relationship with Washington while balancing its ties with Tehran and Iran-aligned armed groups.

Iraq’s Oil Minister Basem Mohammed Khudhair refused to answer questions about moving away from the Federal Reserve, telling MEE that the question fell under the remit of the finance ministry. However, he described the relationship between Baghdad and Washington as positive.

“There has been dialogue with the United States – a very positive dialogue, especially after our trip accompanied by the Prime Minister Ali al-Zaidi there,” he said. “There is great understanding between the Iraqi government and the American government, and the US has provided all support to the Iraqi government for its success in its economic and political dossiers.”

But the consequences of Iraq’s financial dependence are ultimately felt beyond government ministries and central banks.

‘US controls Iraq’s fate’

Hussein Ali, a 35-year-old Baghdad native, said removing US oversight would not necessarily improve the lives of ordinary Iraqis. “For us, whether Iraq’s money goes to the Federal Reserve in America or comes directly to Iraq, I don’t think our situation as citizens will improve. 

“Instead, the money will be at the disposal of the corrupt, and financial corruption will be even greater than it is now. From my viewpoint, I find it better for the money to remain in New York, under the guardianship and oversight of the US banking authorities.” Ali nevertheless acknowledged the sovereignty problem.

“It is true that keeping Iraq’s money in the US bank gives the United States the freedom to control Iraq’s fate politically, financially and in sovereign terms. But Iraq is not ready in terms of banking infrastructure, and the situation requires a strong government to come that cares about the country’s affairs and the interests of its people.”

He also raised concerns about money being moved towards Iran. “We have often heard how many officials and not state people smuggle money to Iran to help it confront the American economic blockade on Iran. Imagine what would happen if Iraq received its oil sale money into Iraqi banks far from American oversight and auditing. I believe Iraq’s situation will only get worse.”

Fatima Abdulkarim, a 55-year-old from Basra, shared those concerns. “I do not believe that Iraq’s oil funds going to Iraq directly instead of going to US banks will help to improve our economic situation.”

“Yes, it means Iraqis would dispose of the money without direct US intervention, but corruption will be greater, and the money will go to the same corrupt parties and officials. If the money remains in New York, it is at least under oversight and auditing. But if it comes to Iraqi banks far from any real oversight, I believe Iraq’s situation will be worse off.”

“Keeping the money under the guardianship and oversight of the US banking authorities is better than it reaching the hands of the corrupt,” Abdulkarim said.

Summary

• Trump by day’s end denies offering Iran sanctions relief in exchange for nuclear concessions; the morning headlines triggered a sharp drop in oil prices.

• US-Iran talks may resume, but only indirectly, this week; however Tehran remains skeptical after Trump rejected its ceasefire proposal.

• Iran announced targeting 19 vessels over a 48 hour period this weekend and is threatening to escalate further.

• Iran’s economy feels the pressure, with the rial hitting a record low near 2.3 million per dollar.

*  *  *

Trump Denies

We’ve really come full circle from where Monday morning started, and conveniently it’s just after market close:

Rinse and repeat…

No one believes it https://t.co/WGj0ebjy7f

— The_Real_Fly (@The_Real_Fly) September 28, 2026

Trump: “As soon as that war ends, inflation is gonna be eradicated totally” pic.twitter.com/Yvgnc1wKHW

— The_Real_Fly (@The_Real_Fly) September 28, 2026

All of this and it’s only Monday…

State Media Denies Iran Agreed to Halt Enrichment

As expected, the Iranians are denying the earlier reports that it “agreed to halt enrichment” – which came through Saudi state sources (see below):

IRANIAN OFFICIAL SAYS IRAN’S POSITION ON THE NUCLEAR ISSUE HAS NOT CHANGED AND THAT NO DISCUSSIONS ARE CURRENTLY TAKING PLACE ON THE MATTER, ADDING THAT REPORTS OF IRAN’S FLEXIBILITY ON ITS NUCLEAR STANCE ARE INCORRECT – FARS NEWS

IRAN’S ARAGHCHI: ‘STRONGLY DENY’ FLEXIBILITY ON NUCLEAR ISSUE

More confirmation: “Iranian MP Ebrahim Rezaei says no negotiations will begin until the US fulfils its commitments in the Islamabad understanding, while he stated that Iranian diplomats lack permission for bilateral or trilateral talks in the current situation.” But importantly:

TRUMP: DID NOT OFFER SANCTIONS RELIEF TO IRAN

And via state PressTV, calling the reports false:

🔺 An informed Iranian official has told Press TV that reports published by some news outlets about Iran showing flexibility over its nuclear position are false. pic.twitter.com/hloF3GbI3J

— Press TV 🔻 (@PressTV) September 28, 2026

Crude Drops Further on Regional Media Claims

Crude drops further, stocks exploding, amid another bombshell headline which will more than likely be met with a swift Iranian denial:

Iran has agreed to halt enrichment in exchange for easing US sanctions, reports [Saudi state] Al Hadath

Denial, or the walk-back was quick:

• The chances of an agreement are extremely slim, according to a US source involved in negotiations with Iran, via Al Arabiya
• While some reports allege that mediators in a last-ditch effort have suggested that Tehran frontload nuclear-related concessions to get buy-in from Trump, an Iranian source told Amwaj Media said no such proposal has been made

مصدر أميركي منخرط بالمفاوضات مع إيران للعربية: الفجوات واسعة والعقبات كبيرة #العربية_عاجل

— العربية عاجل (@AlArabiya_Brk) September 28, 2026

Oil Tumbles on the Unexpected: Trump Signals Sanctions Relief (…TACO Monday)

Al Jazeera is reporting that President Trump is signaling he’d be open to providing Iran with sanctions relief in return for nuclear concessions – though it remains that Tehran has throughout the war insisted that a ceasefire deal must be achieved first, before the nuclear file is dealt with.

US official says US President Trump is prepared to ease sanctions on Iran and release its frozen assets in exchange for progress on the nuclear issue, reports Al Jazeera

And…

CNN and Axios also run US offiicial comments (echoing Al Jazeera) that US President Trump is willing to grant Iran sanctions relief and release frozen funds in exchange for real progress on the nuclear issue.

As stocks jump, crude big plummet…

Note via Newsquawk: Oil sees downside, with slight Dollar pressure, while Treasuries, stocks, and spot gold see upside amid reports that Trump is ready to ease sanctions on Iran and release its frozen assets in exchange for progress on the nuclear file. Meanwhile…

IRAN OFFICIALS PESSIMISTIC ABOUT DEAL WITH US BEFORE MIDTERMS

The Iranian response is what’s going to matter here. They will likely see in this another ploy to merely talk down oil prices, and have already repeatedly said they ‘don’t trust’ Trump. It was only on Friday night into Saturday that Trump outright rejected Iran’s 7-day ceasefire pitch – with not even so much as an effort to sit down and talk details. But apparently that could happen this week on an indirect basis, via the typical Gulf mediators.

Ayatollah New Threat

After a weekend which saw President Trump reject an Iranian proposal for a 7-day ceasefire and roadmap to peace, and Tehran in turn targeting 19 ships in the Strait of Hormuz, the two sides once again have their fingers on the trigger.

Iran has said while it remains open to diplomacy, it is ‘fully prepared’ to resume the full-scale war with Washington, according to Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi on Sunday. On Monday, Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei – who still hasn’t been seen since the war’s start and after his father’s assassination – has proclaimed his military has driven the ‘enemy’ from waters off southern Iran to the Arabian Sea.

“Having suffered painful blows from our valiant combatants and the guardians of the Strait of Hormuz, they [the enemy] dare not venture beyond the Arabian Sea,” Khamenei said in a new message. He warned that war could soon come to the Arabian Sea as well.

His words were issued on the annual remembrance of the Iran-Iraq War, as well as the anniversary of Israel’s killing of Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah in 2024.

“Whenever they have risked doing so they have only inflicted harm upon themselves, and the time is fast approaching when the Arabian Sea, too, will be cleared of their presence,” Khamenei’s message added. This marks an extension of threats from Iranian security officials last week which warned that war is coming to the Indian Ocean more broadly.

However, the reality also is that oil exports from the Persian Gulf and Gulf of Oman have been climbing over the past week. But renewed hostilities in the Strait of Hormuz, where Iranian forces are trying to hinder this uptick in transit, is looking more and more likely.

This as diplomacy is obviously stalled. Bloomberg observes, “Iran and the US appeared far apart on a new ceasefire deal or the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, with Tehran saying it’s sticking to a proposal US President Donald Trump has rejected.” And, “In futures, oil rose as Iran and the US appeared far apart on a new ceasefire deal or the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, with Tehran saying it’s sticking to a proposal that US President Donald Trump has rejected.”

Return to ‘Talks’ Narrative

Like clockwork, anonymous diplomatic officials are once again in pre-market Monday morning hours pushing a “talks” narrative. According to more latest from Bloomberg:

Mediators expected to hold separate talks with US and Iran on Monday or Tuesday, with Iran Foreign Minister Araghchi and Qatari mediators remaining in the US, according to sources. Talks to focus on amended version of 7-day proposal Iran presented on UNGA sidelines.

Over the weekend, Trump rejected Iran’s latest proposal to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, while Iran said any reopening remains contingent on its conditions being met and its UN delegation reportedly has no plans for talks with the US. Trump nonetheless expects negotiations to resume this week, with the Iranian President also supporting talks.

And the Wall Street Journal has a parallel Monday morning story: “Peace negotiators are pressing Iran to make a concession on its nuclear program to revive ceasefire talks with the U.S. after President Trump rejected Tehran’s truce proposal, in a race to stop the conflict from escalating back into all-out war,” the publication says. On the headlines:

• Brent Dec fell from USD 100.70/bbl to around USD 99.60/bbl.
• WTI Nov dipped from USD 96/bbl to USD 94.90/bbl.

Trump in new comments to Axios:

“I expect more talks with Iran (this week),” Trump told Axios in a phone interview. “They want to make a deal, but it is not the deal that I want to make. It is what we would have maybe agreed to a year ago. They overplayed their hand.”

Araghchi apparently stayed in New York through the weekend following his attendance of the UN General Assembly, with President Pesheshkian having departed back to Iran.

Ready for “apocalyptic war” if it comes to that…

🔸New: Iran’s FM Araghchi:

“President Pezeshkian and I did not come to New York to sell a war. We came to forge peace.

Iran nonetheless remains steadfast in the face of any aggression—even if it comes to an apocalyptic war. At the same time, we are ready for real diplomacy.” https://t.co/V1VtKDuk4L

— Drop Site (@DropSiteNews) September 27, 2026

Meanwhile the US economic war is continuing to bite, with Iran’s currency has hitting another historic low against the US dollar, exacerbated by severe inflation and the Trump/Bessent ‘Economic D-Day’ and ‘Operation Economic Outcast’ campaigns which seek to strangle the country. Financial trackers note that the free market exchange rate has escalated to 2.3 million rials per US dollar. 

Weekend & Overnight Developments

via Newsquawk

• US President Trump said he rejected a deal from Iran to open the Strait of Hormuz, while he stated Iran wants to make a deal in which they open the strait immediately because it is losing so badly.
• US President Trump said he expects talks with Iran to resume this week even though he rejected Iran’s latest proposal, while he stated the conditions Iran wants are something the US may have agreed to around a year ago and that Tehran overplayed its hand, according to Axios.
• US President Trump said that as soon as the Iran war is over, which is soon, oil will drop, while he stated that they took out a record oil amount from Hormuz on Saturday night. Trump also stated that they will win against Iran in military and economic warfare, while he didn’t want to say regarding striking Iran before the Midterms and noted that Iran inflation was at 318%.
• US President Trump told Chinese President Xi during the summit to stop supporting Iran, according to Axios on Friday, citing US Ambassador to Beijing Perdue.
• Iran’s delegation in New York has no plans for talks with the US, according to a source close to the delegation cited by IRNA.
• Iranian Foreign Minister Araghchi said they have seen the initial response from US President Trump to the 7-day ceasefire proposal, but are waiting to receive the official response via mediators, while he added that only a negotiated solution can get them out of this deadlock. Araghchi also stated that Iran’s conditions are clear and that any move towards reopening the Strait of Hormuz is contingent on these conditions being met.
• Iranian Foreign Minister Araghchi said he and Iranian President Pezeshkian did not come to New York to sell a war and that they came to forge peace, while he added that Iran remains steadfast in the face of any aggression even if it comes to an apocalyptic war, but is at the same time, ready for real diplomacy.
• Iranian President Pezeshkian said regional states can safeguard their own security, and he denied Iran’s direct involvement in Yemen, describing the situation as unrelated to Iran, but stated that Iran is ready to help resolve the conflict and urged Houthis and Saudi Arabia to enter talks instead of escalating.
• IRGC spokesman said not only is the Strait of Hormuz not open, but it is a hunting ground for the IRGC Navy against US submersibles.
• Iran army spokesman said Iran’s armed forces are prepared for any renewed US attacks after US President Trump said he rejected a deal from Iran.
• Local sources reported that a sea cruiser fired at a violating vessel in an unauthorised route of the Strait of Hormuz, according to Fars News.
• Saudi authorities suspended in-person classes in Riyadh for a week on Sunday, following reports the day before that Saudi air defences said they intercepted Houthi drones headed toward the capital and ballistic missiles targeting Khamis Mushait.
• Iranian President Pezeshkian said Iran remains ready for dialogue despite being attacked during previous talks, but pressure and attacks will not force Iran to surrender.
• Source said Iran is prepared to compromise on its nuclear programme but wants guarantees Israel will not attack again after a US deal, N12 reported.