Oklo and Centrus Energy announced they have agreed to pursue a joint venture focused on deconversion services for high-assay low-enriched uranium (HALEU) and the advancement of related fuel-cycle technologies and supply chains.

The JV would operate at Centrus’ Piketon site in Ohio, co-located with the existing enrichment facility and adjacent to Oklo’s planned 1.2 GW power campus. Centrus also recently started expansion efforts at their site and was awarded $900 million to support their HALEU project.

The language being used by company leadership to describe the goals of the JV points to their intentions of pursuing the establishment of a Nuclear Lifecycle Innovation Campus (NLIC) in Ohio.

CEO and co-founder of Oklo Jacob DeWitte stated:

“This framework supports deeper discussions with Centrus on potential pathways to expand deconversion capacity, strengthen domestic supply chains, and advance a more efficient fuel-cycle model that operates from the same location.”

The NLIC program is a push by the DOE to incentivize state governments to host the various stages of the nuclear fuel chain within their borders. States like Texas, Tennessee, and Ohio are getting the message. Other anti-nuclear waste states like New Mexico and California will continue denying their residents the extra tax revenue and high paying job opportunities…

Deconversion transforms enriched uranium hexafluoride (UF6) into forms such as uranium metal or oxide suitable for fabricating fuel assemblies in next-generation reactors. A centralized facility could eliminate the need for individual developers to establish their own deconversion capabilities.

This announcement advances a longstanding partnership. The companies first collaborated via a 2021 letter of intent and expanded ties with a 2023 memorandum of understanding that included HALEU supply from Centrus, component manufacturing, power procurement from Oklo’s plants, and plans for deconversion and fuel fabrication.

As we have been pounding the table for months now, it seems like more companies are getting serious about finally addressing the shortcomings in the American nuclear fuel chain.

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

In Rage and the Republic, I quote former Rep. Jaamal Bowman (D., N.Y.) as capturing the essence of an age of rage when a colleague asked him to stop yelling outside of the House floor. Bowman responded, “I was screaming before you interrupted me.”

Bowman’s statement came to mind this week when Democratic members were miffed when they were interrupted in tirades over war powers with questions about their prior support for unilateral attacks by Democratic presidents. Leaders like Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D., Cal.) and Sen. Adam Schiff (D., Cal.) struggled to explain their prior support for President Barack Obama in doing precisely that in Libya with embarrassing results.

The greatest face plant may have been Schiff’s appearance on “Real Time” with host Bill Maher.

After Schiff denounced any attack without prior congressional approval, Maher read “This statement from the administration: ‘The president had the constitutional authority to direct the use of military force because he could reasonably determine that such use of force was in the national interest.’”

He then asked Schiff, “That’s too vague for you?”

Schiff responded, “Totally vague…”

Mayer than dropped the H bomb: “Okay. Because that’s from Obama about Libya.”

🚨Bill Maher TRAPS Sen. Adam Schiff LIVE on air while U.S. strikes on the Middle East.

Schiff rips into the “vague” statement, convinced it’s from Trump… BUT FINDS OUT IT’S FROM OBAMA🤣

The double standard is glaring. 😂pic.twitter.com/qpQoOU4Hqn

— The Rubin Report (@RubinReportShow) March 9, 2026

The moment laid bare the towering hypocrisy of democrats who continued to support Obama after he attacked Libya without any suggested imminent threat to the United States and an open strategy of regime change.

I represented members of Congress opposing that war over the absence of a declaration of war; most of the senior Democrats today refused to join that litigation.

Pelosi is especially hypocritical on the issue.

She expressly declared that Obama did not need congressional authorization to launch unilateral attacks on Libya seeking regime change. She stated unequivocally that ”I’m satisfied that the president has the authority to go ahead. I say that as one very protective of Congressional prerogative and consultation all along the way.”

Reporters then followed up and pressed her if she really believed that a president could not only launch an unprovoked war but could also continue combat operations without congressional approval. Pelosi answered “yes.”

This week, she made a ham-fisted effort to spin the contradiction. She told the media that the Iran and Libyan wars are “two completely different things. They’re not at all alike.”

Pelosi added, “What Obama did was limited military force. This is beyond that. It was limited military force.” In signature fashion, she then struck out at pesky reporters asking about her past position: “Do your homework. Read the law. We have lost people in war already… I just think if you read the law, you will see the difference.”

While not challenged on the spin, it is historically and legally nonsensical.

The Libyan War was not limited. The Obama Administration attacked the capital city of a country that was posing no imminent threat to the United States. It also took out columns of Libyan military units. It did so with the overt strategy of producing regime change. Figures like then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton supported the action, which led to years of violence and instability in the country.

More importantly, it is immaterial how the two major operations stack up. The question is whether a president can launch large-scale military operations against another country based on their inherent Article II powers. Both Obama and Trump maintained that they could do so and we lost the challenge to the Libyan War.

Moreover, while there are good-faith objections to the need for the attack, presidents have successfully claimed the right to initiate combat operations without congressional authorization.  That has boxed in Congress since the Jefferson administration.

Even though both Democratic and Republican presidents have questioned the constitutionality of the War Powers Act, Trump has actually complied with the requirements to notify and consult with Congress.  The law requires presidents to inform Congress within 48 hours if U.S. forces are introduced into hostilities and requires congressional authorization for engagements that last more than 60 days.

Moreover, both houses have now voted and rejected any limits on Trump’s authority to prosecute this war.

They are, of course, not alone in this hypocrisy.

In 2011,  Sen. Richard Blumenthal praised Obama’s unilateral attack on Libya as a “prudent, decisive action.” This year, he denounced Trump’s attack on Iran as a “unilateral action without accountability…engaging in a war of choice that rejects opportunities for diplomacy.”

These glaring contradictions mean little today in our post-truth political environment. These politicians know that their base does not care as long as they oppose Trump. The obvious misrepresentation of their positions in the past would ordinarily be viewed as raw contempt for the intelligence of the voters. However, they know their base and the license of rage. They also know that the media will not press particularly hard on their flip-flop.

It is that rage that is giving Democrats the courage to vote virtually unanimously to end all combat operations in the midst of an existential battle over Iran. It is the same assurance that is evident in continuing the government shutdown by denying funding to the Department of Homeland Security.

The vote not to fund Homeland Security during a fight with the leading state sponsor of terrorism may stand as the single most reckless, irresponsible vote since Congress authorized the payment of “tribute” to the Barbary Pirates.

The important thing is that, now that these members simply denied that there is any contradiction with their positions from prior Democratic Administrations, they can now avoid further interruptions in this rage rave.

Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the author of the New York Times bestselling “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.”

Novo Nordisk confirmed Monday morning that its months-long GLP-1 feud with telehealth firm Hims & Hers Health has, at least for now, been put on ice, with the Danish drugmaker set to sell Wegovy and Ozempic through HIMS’ platform by the end of the month. The feud’s end was first reported by Bloomberg late Friday and has sparked a panic short squeeze in heavily shorted HIMS shares in New York premarket trading.

Bloomberg headlines crossed around 8:30 a.m. ET, stating that HIMS will no longer offer knockoff GLP-1 drugs on its telehealth platform and will instead offer NOVO’s GLP-1 shots and the Wegovy pill. In return, NOVO has withdrawn its patent infringement lawsuit against Hims.

“We see tremendous growth opportunities in the US with the expanding assortment of branded GLP-1 medications,” said HIMS CEO Andrew Dudum.

Dudum continued, “I’m excited to have a great partner in Novo Nordisk as we work to create a new model that works for everyday people. This collaboration reflects what’s possible globally when drugmakers, biotech companies, and diagnostic leaders partner with consumer platforms to support scaled distribution of their latest medical innovations.”

As we noted over the weekend, the move is very surprising because NOVO and HIMS have been locked in an epic GLP-1 feud for months. Just last month, Novo sued HIMS over a copycat Wegovy pill and patent infringement tied to Ozempic and Wegovy. Even the head of the FDA recently stated that telehealth firms were put on notice about copycat GLP-1s.

Leerink Partners analyst Michael Cherny told clients over the weekend that the NOVO and HIMS news via the Bloomberg report from Friday is a “surprise and an unabashed positive for Hims’ stock.”

And positive it is for the heavily shorted stock, with 39.1% of its float short, or 81 million shares.

HIMS shares are up 52% in premarket trading.

Novo shares in Copenhagen are marginally higher, as we believe both firms making amends was largely driven by investor pressure to halt year-to-date sharp stock losses at both companies.

Friends again. How long will this last? 

Asian and European equities traded lower, while U.S. equity futures fell 1% as Brent and WTI futures traded in triple-digit territory following the weekend escalation in Middle East tensions. The energy shock we have been warning about for the past week, citing top institutional desks from JPMorgan, UBS, Goldman, and others, is now staring G-7 leaders directly in the face as energy market panic erupts.

You know conditions are deteriorating very quickly when the Financial Times reports that G-7 finance ministers are set to hold an 8:30 a.m. New York time call to discuss a possible coordinated release of strategic oil reserves to combat runaway crude prices, as Brent crude hit $119/bbl overnight. Such a move to dump SPR on global markets shows just how afraid policymakers are that the oil shock could crush consumer sentiment and, in turn, hit economic growth.

There have been five coordinated SPR dumps onto the global market with the International Energy Agency. The last two occurred in 2022, in the early days of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, which sent energy prices through the roof. However, as we must note, dumping SPRs in 2022 did not work so well, and the market will likely look beyond current flows and focus on overall stockpiles being drained (read: here & here).

Hello @ENERGY it’s time to open the SPR

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) March 9, 2026

The scramble by G-7 leaders comes as Brent crude hit $119/bbl in Asia, up from about $72 before Operation Epic Fury kicked off more than a week ago, now in its second week. With the Strait of Hormuz effectively closed and Gulf producers cutting output as storage fills up, the worst-case scenario appears to be unfolding: an energy shock.

To cushion the shock, potentially bridging some of the supply gap of a short-term war (but definitely not a longer term or wider disruption) FT sources said world leaders could release 300 million to 400 million barrels, or about 25% to 30% of the 1.2 billion-barrel reserve.

Given the extreme moves, any announcement is likely to move prices (and indeed is already being somewhat discounted) but the question remain of whether that will actually impact the cost of pump prices in America (which are set to soar to $5 a gallon, however briefly, on a lagged response to WTI and RBOB price surges currently).

As Goldman’s Rich Privorotsky noted:

Such a release would buy time. If the disruption proves temporary, a coordinated SPR release makes sense. If the disruption persists for months, those reserves might arguably be more valuable at higher prices or in a more acute shortage 

WTI is down $20 from its overnight highs on the report of the coordinated SPR release…

Late last week, JPMorgan’s top commodity strategist, Natasha Kaneva, did the ‘Hormuz Math‘ and warned that production shut-ins were imminent – hence the weekend production cuts by major Gulf states and Brent crude spiking into triple-digit territory.

Additionally, energy economist Anas Alhajji warned UBS analysts last week about SPR limitations:

“The impact of the U.S. SPR is limited. Saudi Arabia is completely out of the picture. All of that spare capacity in OPEC is out of the picture. So what do we do? We are then left relying on demand destruction to curb prices. And because of the panic buying, prices would go above $100 easily in this scenario.”

Even if the conflict in the Middle East ended today, Alhajji explained that returning Gulf oil and gas production to a ‘normal state’ would take two months because of logistical and technical issues. This only implies that an energy shock has begun. Deutsche Bank warned in recent days that this was an “existential threat” to airlines, and next could very well be a shock to consumers. The only question now is whether the shock is big enough to cause a financial blow to countries that are among the largest importers of crude from the Gulf region, such as China and other Asian countries.

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

Oil prices jumped…

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

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) March 1, 2026

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

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

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) March 2, 2026

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Authored by Thomas Brooke via REMIX,

Hungarian authorities have detained seven Ukrainian citizens and seized tens of millions of dollars, euros, and gold that were being transported through the country in armored vehicles, triggering the latest diplomatic dispute between Budapest and Kyiv.

Hungary’s National Tax and Customs Administration (NAV) confirmed on Friday that criminal proceedings had been launched on suspicion of money laundering following an operation carried out on March 5. Authorities intercepted two armored cash-transport vehicles traveling through Hungary from Austria toward Ukraine.

According to the Hungarian authorities, the vehicles were carrying approximately $40 million, €35 million in cash, and 9 kilograms of gold.

Hungarian Foreign Minister Péter Szijjártó said the case raised serious questions about the movement of large quantities of physical cash through the country.

“Since January, a total of $900 million and €420 million in cash has been transported through Hungary, and 146 kilograms of gold bars have also been transported through the country,” he said, as cited by Magyar Hírlap.

“We have a number of serious questions about this. First of all, this is a huge amount of cash, and we wonder why Ukrainians need to transport such a large amount of cash. If it is true that this is a transaction between banks, then the question rightly arises as to why the banks do not settle this between themselves by bank transfer, why it is necessary to transport such a large amount of cash, and why it has to be transported through Hungary,” Szijjártó added.

“These questions arise mainly because these cash shipments are accompanied by people who have clear ties to Ukrainian secret services.”

🇭🇺Hungary confirms detaining seven people in an alleged money-laundering probe.
Authorities say the case involves $40m, €35m and 9 kg of gold.
🤡 Kiev calls it “hostage-taking.” Western media repeat it. Funny how anti-Orbán headlines appear just weeks before Hungary’s… pic.twitter.com/AkTHHsMbrA

— The Center (@alapjogokert) March 6, 2026

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s political director, Balázs Orbán, also commented on the case, raising concerns about the purpose of the funds.

“Hundreds of millions in cash and gold moving through Hungary toward Ukraine — escorted by people linked to Ukrainian intelligence. Armored vehicles, suitcases full of money, staggering sums,” he wrote on X.

‼️💵 💰 Hundreds of millions in cash and gold moving through 🇭🇺 Hungary toward Ukraine — escorted by people linked to Ukrainian intelligence. Armored vehicles, suitcases full of money, staggering sums.

⁉️ Whose money is this? What was it meant to finance? Who benefits from it?… pic.twitter.com/I9Mu1X2g46

— Balázs Orbán (@BalazsOrban_HU) March 6, 2026

“Whose money is this? What was it meant to finance? Who benefits from it? And why must such enormous amounts of cash travel across our country instead of being transferred through normal banking channels?”

He added that authorities would conduct a full investigation and argued that the Hungarian public had a right to know where such funds were coming from and what they were intended for.

Ukraine, however, has strongly rejected the allegations and accused Hungary of illegally detaining its citizens and confiscating bank property.

Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha said the seven individuals were employees of the state-owned Oschadbank who were conducting a routine cash transfer between financial institutions.

“Today in Budapest, Hungarian authorities took seven Ukrainian citizens hostage. The reasons are still unknown, as well as their current well-being, or the possibility of contacting them,” Sybiha said in a social media post cited by Ukrinform.

If they were going Vienna-Kyiv they were taking the scenic route. Typically you’d drive through Poland. 🇭🇺🇺🇦🤔 https://t.co/ylPBfg5e0G pic.twitter.com/CqMj7LWeob

— Philip Pilkington (@philippilk) March 6, 2026

According to Kyiv, the vehicles were transporting currency and precious metals between Raiffeisen Bank Austria and Oschadbank Ukraine as part of standard banking operations.

Sybiha accused Hungary of acting unlawfully. “If this is the ‘force’ announced earlier today by Mr. Orban, then this is the force of a criminal gang. This is state terrorism and racketeering,” he said.

Oschadbank also confirmed that two of its armored vehicles and a seven-member transport team had been detained in Hungary while carrying out what it described as a routine transfer of funds and banking metals.

“The value of the assets in the seized vehicles amounted to $40 million, EUR 35 million, and 9 kg of gold,” the bank said in a statement, adding that the transport had been documented in accordance with international banking and customs procedures.

According to GPS tracking data cited by the bank, the vehicles were last located in central Budapest near one of Hungary’s law enforcement agencies. Ukrainian officials said the whereabouts of the bank employees were not immediately known.

Ukraine’s foreign ministry has also issued a warning advising Ukrainian citizens to avoid traveling through Hungary following what it described as the “kidnapping” of the bank employees and seizure of state bank assets.

The incident marks the latest escalation in already strained relations between the two countries.

Zelensky issues dire threat to Hungarian PM Orbán if he continues to block €90 billion in loans to Ukraine.

“We hope this one person [Orban] in the EU will not block €90 billion aid. Otherwise, we will give this person’s address to our armed forces.”pic.twitter.com/ayoSJlDCEs

— Remix News & Views (@RMXnews) March 5, 2026

On Thursday, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky sparked outrage among European nationalist politicians by suggesting that Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s address could be given to Ukrainian armed forces so they could “speak to him in their own language.”

Hungarian officials interpreted the remark as a threat directed at Orbán amid ongoing disputes over Hungary’s opposition to a proposed €90 billion EU loan package for Ukraine.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Authored by Adam Shapr via DailyReckoning.com,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let’s get started…

Can Iran Wait it Out?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Challenging Topography

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Good luck with that.

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

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

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

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

Source: WSJ

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

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

Source: RT

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

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

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

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

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

That may be Iran.

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

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

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