In the 1970s, the concept of peak oil gained societal traction during years of skyrocketing gasoline costs and a pivotal energy crisis.

The theory was simple yet captivating: oil is a limited resource and therefore will one day run out. As demand rises and supply shocks got worse and worse, it was reasonable to assume that society would be forced to adapt to a whole new energy reality.

For various reasons, peak oil never happened – but that hasn’t stopped researchers from applying this same “peak” concept to bring other developing trends into the public consciousness.

Peak Child is in the Rearview Mirror

While everything from peak population to peak coffee has been proposed, there is one peak that it looks like we’re already on the other side of: peak child.

The below chart from Our World in Data shows data and projections for three global populations: 0-5 years old, 0-15 years old, and 0-25 years old.

Visual Capitalist’s Jeff Desjardins notes that as of 2024, all of them are officially on the downslope.

When Did We Hit Peak Child?

While peak child is not as dramatic as running out of oil or water, it is a significant turning point in global demographics.

When this peak occurred, of course, depends on which exact age group we’re talking about. For children under five years old, the peak occurred in 2017. For young people under 15 years old it was in 2021, and for the under-25 demographic it was 2024.

But as you can likely sense, peak child is the first step in actually hitting the aforementioned prophecy of peak population. And in case you are wondering, the most recent projections from the United Nations have the global population starting to decline in the year 2084.

That said, these peak forecasts are always subject to change—and one technology that could potentially delay a top in global population revolves around the recent advancements in combatting aging.

Want to learn more about global demographics and population age groups? Check out this visualization that breaks down all 8 billion people into different age brackets.

Authored by Brenda Shaffer & Dalga Khatinoglu via RealClearEnergy,

Iran is experiencing a systemic energy crisis. While many times in the past, Iran has had gas shortages or refined product shortages, this time Iran is undergoing an energy meltdown, with parallel shortages of electricity, natural gas and refined products. The Iranian energy crisis can affect regime stability. The lack of ability to provide basic energy needs to the public is an indicator of significant regime weakness. Iran’s gas trade with its neighbors— Turkey and Iraq—has also been disrupted. There is no quick fix to Iran’s energy shortages, which will continue to limit economic activity.

Iran holds the world’s second largest natural gas reserves and is the fourth-largest holder of oil reserves globally. With 300 sunny days annually, vast coastal and mountainous windy regions, the country also has strong wind and solar potential. Yet, Iran faces a constant 20% electricity deficit, a 25% natural gas deficit, and severe shortages of petroleum products, especially gasoline. For years, Tehran has seen the energy crisis coming but took no meaningful steps to avert it.

There is no quick fix to Iran’s energy crisis. Iran’s Oil Minister Mohsen Paknejad said this week that Iran needs $45 billion in investment to emerge from the energy crisis. Iran could reduce the impact of the crisis through increased gas imports from Turkmenistan. However, Iran has not been able to sustain gas import from Turkmenistan over the years, due to Tehran’s lack of payment. The regime’s energy subsidies to the public are also a huge financial burden, with close to a quarter of Iran’s GNP expended on subsidies.

There are multiple factors in Iran’s energy crisis.

One, the domestic gas and power prices in Iran are too low and this leads to high energy demand. The low prices are essentially a government subsidy aimed to keep the public complacent. In the past, when the government has raised energy prices, they have often triggered large-scale protests. The regime cannot risk new unrest. With such low prices, there is no motivation for private investment in gas and power supply in Iran and the government loses money on the energy it provides to the public.

Second, Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) commanders control the energy sector, like most infrastructure and communication sectors in Iran. The finances are murky and there is extensive corruption. Even when the government allocates funds for maintenance and expansion of energy infrastructure, a lot is syphoned off.

Third, subsidized refined products are smuggled abroad, exacerbating the shortages. Approximately, 20% of Iran’s fuel production is smuggled and sold abroad. There is a huge gap in prices in gasoline and other refined products between Iran and its neighbors, making smuggling abroad a very lucrative business. 

Fourth, Tehran has not maintained its energy infrastructure and production consistently. Due to aging and inefficient infrastructure, Iran loses during production and transmission 40% of the total household electricity and gas consumption in Iran. In addition, Iran does not maintain sufficient gas storage capacity, in order to balance seasonable demand and production swings and other challenges.

Last, policy priorities generated the energy crisis: for close to a decade, Tehran provided Syria with 80,000-100,000 barrels a day of oil cost-free (on a credit line that will never be paid), while failing to provide sufficient fuel to its own citizens.

The energy crisis is having a huge impact on Iran’s economic output. Between 30-50% of Iran’s factories are currently idle due to lack of regular power. The crisis also affects Iran’s oil production, since gas for injection into fields is lacking. Iran’s steel production declined in half over the last year due to the energy crisis. Several of Iran’s refineries are not operating due to the lack of power, adding to the refined fuel shortage. This creates shortage of refined products for the domestic market as well as cuts into export revenue. Due to the energy crisis, some 22 cement plants are idled and pharmaceutical production had declined.

Iran’s energy crisis affects its food production as well. Iran’s fertilizer production is down, due to the lack of natural gas for feed stock. Higher fertilizer prices generate higher agricultural good prices. In previous summers, the energy crisis has hurt crops, since frequent electricity disruptions incapacitated water pumps.

In contrast to the regime’s statements, sanctions are not the cause of the Iranian energy crisis. Iran does not need foreign equipment to produce natural gas and power. Russia has been under sanctions for over a decade, and still manages quite well to provide electricity and heat to the Russian population. Iran could purchase from Russia and China any equipment it cannot manufacture at home. In addition, this is not Israel’s doing. With no evidence, the regime claims that last year Israel attacked two gas pipelines, and this is the cause of the crisis. However, gas pipelines are relatively easy to fix, and this does not explain the all-out shortages in electricity and fuel.

The gas shortages also affect Tehran’s natural gas export. Tehran exports gas to Turkey, Iraq and Armenia. The Minister of Energy and Natural Resources of Turkey, Dr. Alparslan Bayraktar, stated that Iran’s exports to Turkey are currently at half of its contractual commitment. Iraq also reported cutbacks in oil production due to the supply disruption of Iranian gas.

Iran’s power demand has continued to grow, but generation has not kept up. According to Iranian government estimates in 2010, the country needed annual electricity generation growth of at least 7% to avoid electricity shortages, but Iran only reached half that rate. In 2023, only one third of the electricity production was achieved. And, last year, electricity generation growth was even lower.

Source:  Tehran Chamber of Commerce

Currently, over 90% of the country’s electricity is generated by thermal power plants, with very low efficiency rates. Some of the country’s oldest plants have efficiency rates as low as 20%. Renewables provide only 1% of Iran’s electricity.

Iran also has a major gasoline and diesel deficit. To address these shortages, Tehran imports fuel from neighbors, including Russia.

Frequent blackouts and lack of fuel have been triggers to widespread regime protests and government overthrow in multiple locations in the world. The regimes of Egyptian presidents Hosni Mubarak and Mohammad Morsi, both fell after protracted power blackouts. The civil war in Syria during Bashar al-Assad’s reign, emerged right after Syria’s oil production fell to the level of its domestic consumption, leaving little oil revenue to fund the government and its security services. This year in Bangladesh, protestors toppled the government of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina amid widespread power outages. Iran’s energy crisis can galvanize further opposition to the rule of the unpopular Islamic Republic. Iran’s energy crisis and potential regime crisis is happening on the eve of President Trump’s return to the White House and he is set on removing the Iranian threat.

Brenda Shaffer is a faculty member of the U.S. Naval Postgraduate School.

Dalga Khatinoglu is an expert on Iran energy issues. He served as head of Iran news service at Azerbaijan’s Trend News Agency (2007-2017) and was at Natural Gas World (2014-2020). Currently he is at RFE/RL and DW (Persian desk). 

By Stuart Chirls of FreightWaves

Yemen’s Houthi rebels said they will cease attacks on Israel and on merchant shipping in the Red Sea as a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas took effect Sunday.

“If Israel stops the aggression in Gaza, and if the U.S., UK and Israel stop the aggression against Yemen, the Houthis will stop their operations, including attacks against navies and commercial ships,” Houthi spokesperson Mohammed al-Bukhaiti told Arab news service Al Jazeera on Saturday.

The ceasefire began over the weekend with an exchange of Israeli hostages from Gaza and Palestinian prisoners held in Israel. Later phases will include the withdrawal of Israel from Gaza.

Ocean lines have said they are watching developments in the Red Sea but have offered no timeline to resume regular schedules there. Among major lines, only CMA CGM has maintained a schedule on the Suez Canal route.

“The situation in the Suez Canal remains fluid and the security situation is unclear,” said MSC, in an email to FreightWaves. “In order to guarantee the safety of our seafarers and to ensure consistency and predictability of service for our customers, MSC will continue to transit via the Cape of Good Hope [around Africa] until further notice”

The diversions away from the Red Sea absorbed capacity and pushed up rates to cover higher operating expenses for voyages as much as two weeks longer than normal. That’s been a boon for carriers who saw profits swell by billions of dollars in late 2024.

But a confluence of factors could moderate prices with negotiations on 2025 ocean rates well underway: a return to less costly sailings on the Suez route; a slack shipping season ahead of Lunar New Year; and the deployment of new ships expected to begin in February, when reorganized carrier alliances and vessel-sharing agreements go into effect.

The Iran-backed Houthis, a rebel militia that controls about 40% of Yemen, began attacking merchant ships they claim were linked to Israel and Israel-supporting countries in the Red Sea-Suez Canal route shortly after the terrorist attacks by Hamas on Israel on Oct. 6, 2023. The attacks have reshaped the global supply chain as major container and crude oil tanker lines connecting Asia, Europe, the Mediterranean and United States have diverted away from the region and on longer voyages around the Horn of Africa.

A multinational force of American and European Union navies has taken up patrols of the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden, escorting vessels and turning back Houthi strikes.

Two merchant seamen have been killed in the Houthi attacks, and two vessels and their crew remain captive, in Yemen and Iran.

At the same time, U.S. and U.K. forces have continued to carry out strikes on Houthi targets inside Yemen. Attacks against shipping have declined in recent months as the Houthis shifted to more direct attacks on Israel.

Authored by Rachel Roberts via The Epoch Times,

Family members of those harmed by vaccines told the UK Covid-19 Inquiry they were forced to form their own support systems after being ignored by the authorities and made to feel like “an uncomfortable truth” of the rollout.

Kate Scott, speaking on behalf of the group Vaccine Injured and Bereaved UK (VIBUK), said they felt they were “almost being pushed into the shadows” as the overwhelming official message continued to be that the jabs were ”safe and effective” in spite of their experience.

Last week’s hearing also heard from a victims’ group in Scotland which raised concerns that the vaccine had been rolled out at such speed that public safety had been sacrifice

Module 4 of the long-running inquiry, chaired by Baroness Heather Hallett, is examining issues relating to the development of COVID-19 vaccines and other drugs.

Scott, whose husband Jamie was left severely disabled by the vaccine, said:

“We are an uncomfortable truth, but we are a truth, and the truth is for everyone in our group, the vaccine caused serious harm and death.”

Jamie Scott spent over a month in a coma after suffering the life-threatening side effect known as vaccine-induced immune thrombosis and thrombocytopenia after taking the now withdrawn AstraZeneca jab.

He survived but with a serious brain injury which has left him unable to work, partially blind, and unable to live independently, while his wife also had to give up her job to help care for him.

‘Too Little, Too Late’

He received the maximum payout of £120,000 from the government’s Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme (VDPS) which is given to those who are assessed as being left 60 percent disabled as a result of a vaccine.

The inquiry will consider whether the VDPS should be reformed after some vaccine-injured people were left without the payment because they were assessed as not being severely disabled enough, even when left with life-changing health problems.

Kate Scott said, “The scheme is inadequate, insufficient, and offers too little too late and to too few.”

She told the hearing that victims of vaccine damage were made to feel that were “the only ones, or the unlucky ones, and just get on with it, and that’s impossible when you’re grieving a loved one, or your husband is in intensive care.”

A Freedom of Information request made by VIBUK showed that, as of November 2024, victims or their family members have made 17,519 claims to the scheme.

Of these, just 194 have so far been told that they are entitled to the payment, while 1,027 people have had to wait more than 12 months to hear if their claim was successful, and 126 people are still waiting for a decision more than three years after submitting their claim.

Inquiry chair, Baroness Heather Hallett arrives at the UK Covid-19 Inquiry at Dorland House in London, during its first investigation (Module 1), on July 12, 2023. PA

‘Traumatic Process’

Ruth O’Rafferty, from the Scottish Vaccine Injury Group, said the VDPS application process was “traumatic” for all those who went through it, with some members having to move house or use food banks because of the waiting time or the refusal.

“A lot of us are neurologically impacted, so we find it difficult to communicate. Some are so severely injured that they can’t actually write,” she said.

O’Rafferty, who suffered a brain injury following the jab, told the inquiry that many of the 750 members of her group have said there was no informed consent before they or their family members took the vaccines.

“A lot of our members were not given a leaflet until after they had the vaccine, which means they didn’t really … know what they were consenting to, and we now know the level of damage and breadth of injury that can result and even [some types] not listed in the leaflet.”

She added that the support groups are aware of a greater variety of injuries caused by the jabs than those acknowledged by official sources, such as the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, which administers the Yellow Card reporting scheme, or the UK Health and Security Agency (UKHSA), which is responsible for the Green Book of immunisation information for health professionals.

“We feel that the Yellow Card [system] is not fit for purpose,” O’Rafferty said, because too many people were not aware of it, and often doctors were not reporting vaccine side-effects and injuries to it because the Green Book did not recognise a particular condition as being caused by a jab.

“The Green Book only mentions myocarditis, thrombosis, and Guillain-Barre syndrome, really,” she said.

Kate Scott said that in terms of pharmacovigilence, she wants to see it become mandatory for medical staff to ask if those rushed to A&E have recently been vaccinated in case it is a factor in their condition.

She added that if the vaccine-injured and bereaved had been allowed to share their stories with the media or online without censorship, lives could have been saved as some people might have been aware of the side-effects and sought medical treatment more quickly.

Former Health Secretary Matt Hancock during a visit to an NHS vaccine centre in January 2021. Dominic Lipinski/PA

Censorship

“You were not allowed to even suggest that vaccines cause injury or bereavement … posts were removed online of death certificates,” she said, because social media giants were labelling these posts as “misinformation.”

The hearing was also shown a 15-minute video of people sharing a variety of experiences around vaccination, including those who welcomed the jabs as the only way they felt life could return to “normal,” and from COVID-19-bereaved people who felt earlier access to the jabs might have saved their loved ones.

Counsel for the UKHSA told the inquiry that the vaccines had prevented over 100,000 deaths in the UK alone, while former Health Secretary Matt Hancock said it was only through the rollout of the jabs that the country had been released from lockdown.

Hancock praised those involved in the vaccine rollout, saying:

“The question …  is whether it is net positive in terms of taking it,” adding that, “The vaccines were valid and safe and saved lives.”

The former health secretary, who stood down as an MP at the last general election, told the inquiry that he “of course” accepted there had been serious side-effects and deaths, and that the systems for flagging up complications were imperfect.

“We came to see the pharmacovigilence systems as effectively like a Phase 4 trial,” he said, when questioned by Anna Morris, KC, acting for the vaccine injured and bereaved.

The fourth module of the inquiry is set to run until the end of January.

Authored by Andrew Korybko via Substack,

Trump said a few words about Russia shortly after his reinauguration while signing Executive Orders in the Oval Office.

They’re important to interpret since they might hint at his peace plan, which he’s yet to officially reveal, but reports have circulated claiming that he’ll “escalate to de-escalate” through more sanctions against Russia and armed aid to Ukraine if Putin rejects whatever deal he offers.

He’ll likewise allegedly cut Ukraine off if Zelensky rejects the same deal. 

Here’s what he said on Monday afternoon:

“Zelenskyy told me he wants to make a deal, I don’t know if Putin does … He might not. I think he should make a deal. I think he’s destroying Russia by not making a deal. I think, Russia is kinda in big trouble. You take a look at their economy, you take a look at their inflation in Russia. I got along with [Putin] great, I would hope he wants to make a deal.

He’s grinding it out. Most people thought it would last about one week and now you’re into three years. It is not making him look good. We have numbers that almost a million Russian soldiers have been killed. About 700,000 Ukrainian soldiers are killed. Russia’s bigger, they have more soldiers to lose but that’s no way to run a country.”

Starting from the beginning, his claim that Zelensky “wants to make a deal” coupled with his uncertainty about Putin’s willingness might be meant to portray the latter as an obstacle to peace, thus possibly setting the stage for the previously mentioned punitive measures.

As for his opinion that Putin is “destroying Russia”, that’s hyperbole but frames his counterpart as the weaker of the two, especially when contrasted with Trump’s declaration earlier that day about the start of an American Golden Age.

He then elaborated by pointing to Russia’s inflation rate, which is implied to be the result of the West’s unprecedented sanctions and correspondingly hinting at the possibility of some relief in exchange for Putin agreeing to compromise instead of continuing to pursue his maximum goals.

Building upon that, citing Ukraine’s grossly inflated estimate of Russian losses might belie ignorance of the facts if he truly believes their numbers, but it could also reaffirm his expectation that Putin must compromise.

To explain, Trump seems to believe that Western sanctions’ effect on the Russian economy and the battlefield losses that Russia has suffered (both of which are exaggerated in the context that he referred to them) justify proposing compromises from Putin, not giving into his demands. For this reason, it’s likely that the earlier reports about him planning to propose something less than what his counterpart signaled would be acceptable are true, after which he’ll “escalate to de-escalate” if it’s rejected.

Observers can only speculate about the substance of his envisaged proposal, but it might look something like what was suggested at the end of this analysis here, particularly with regards to the proverbial carrots that Trump might offer Putin with regard to Ukraine’s neutrality and phased sanctions relief.

As for the compromises that might be requested of Russia, these could include freezing the Line of Contact while being asked to accept only the partial demilitarization of Ukraine and practically no denazification.

Trump’s known for his capriciousness, however, so it might be that he either didn’t mean to hint at anything at all in his latest remarks about Russia or he might unexpectedly change his mind about the compromises that he considers to be acceptable for each party during his upcoming call with Putin.

Nobody can therefore say with certainty what he had in mind, let alone what he’ll ultimately do, but this analysis is premised on the assumption that he might have even subconsciously let part of his plan slip.

Authored by Nick Giambruno via InternationalMan.com,

World War 3 is already well underway, even though most don’t recognize it…

Russia, China, and their allies want to transform the current US-led world order that has been in place since the end of WW2 from unipolar to multipolar—giving themselves a bigger seat at the table in the process.

The US and its allies want the unipolar status quo to prevail.

WW3 is unlikely to evolve into a direct kinetic war between the US, Russia, and China because that could invite nuclear Armageddon, where everyone loses.

Instead, WW3 is playing out on different levels—proxy wars, economic wars, financial wars, cyber wars, biological wars, deniable sabotage, and information wars.

This is World War 3. It’s happening right now and rapidly escalating.

2025 could be the year it all comes to a head.

As I see it, World War 3 is a conflict between two geopolitical blocks.

The first block consists of the US and its allies who have hitched their wagons to the unipolar world order.

I’m reluctant to call this block “the West” because the people who control it have values antithetical to Western Civilization.

A more fitting label would be NATO & Friends.

The other block comprises Russia, China, Iran, and other countries favorable to a multipolar world order.

Let’s call them the BRICS+, which stands for Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, and other interested countries.

BRICS+ is not a perfect label, but it’s a decent representation of the countries favorable to the multipolar world order.

Some countries don’t fall decisively into one category. I’ve put these countries in a separate Non-Aligned category. They are prime arenas of competition for NATO & Friends and BRICS+.

Below is an approximate map of the geopolitical chessboard as I see it. Click the image to enlarge.

I believe proxy warfare will likely determine who wins World War 3 and gets to shape the new world order.

Proxy wars are a method by which major powers fight their battles indirectly, using smaller nations or groups as stand-ins rather than confronting each other directly.

Major powers support, equip, and finance smaller groups or nations in a proxy war to fight against a common adversary. This support can include military training, weapons, funding, and other resources. The critical point is that the major powers do not engage directly in combat.

There are numerous ongoing proxy wars in World War 3.

However, the ones I believe will prove decisive will be in Taiwan, Ukraine, and the Middle East. The other proxy wars are peripheral in comparison.

Unlike in Europe (Russia) or East Asia (China), there is no sophisticated nuclear power to deter NATO & Friends from more aggressive military action in the Middle East. Iran is, therefore, the weak link in the BRICS+ alliance to push for a multipolar world order.

That’s why I expect NATO & Friends will make their last stand to scuttle the emergence of a multipolar world order and preserve the US-led world order in the Middle East.

The Middle East is roughly divided into two different geopolitical groups.

The first is the US and its allies—Israel, Turkey, Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, and others.

(Though Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE are members of BRICS+, their true allegiance is with the agenda of NATO & Friends).

The second group consists of Iran and its allies—the Houthis in Yemen, Hezbollah in Lebanon, several Palestinian groups (including Hamas), and an assortment of militias in Iraq.

Iran is a key member of BRICS+ and a proponent of a multipolar world order. That’s why Russia and China stand behind Iran with economic, political, and military support.

In early 2024, the geopolitical momentum in the Middle East appeared to be with Iran and its allies.

However, that all changed recently as the Middle East has undergone its most significant geopolitical transformation in generations.

It culminated with militants supported by Turkey, Israel, and the US overthrowing Bashar al-Assad in Syria. It dealt a severe blow to Iran and its allies and, by extension, the multipolar agenda of BRICS+.

Previously, it seemed Turkey was moving closer to BRICS+. However, after recent events, it’s now unambiguous. After delivering the biggest geopolitical win for NATO & Friends in decades, there’s little doubt Turkey is fully onboard with their agenda.

Turkey has emerged as the dominant power and kingmaker in Syria, extending NATO & Friends’ influence into new strategic territory in the heart of the Middle East.

Turkey’s ambitions likely extend well beyond Syria. Erdogan has made no secret of his intention to create a Neo-Ottoman Empire. He now has a golden opportunity to make this a reality with the help of NATO & Friends.

Turkey’s conquest of Syria is not without immense challenges. The country remains fractured and unstable.

Armed Kurdish forces, avowed foes of Turkey, control about a third of Syria.

Assad loyalists are concentrated in the coastal region and other parts of the country. They remain heavily armed and hostile to the new Syrian authorities.

There are ISIS remnants that haven’t submitted to the new government either.

Then there is the Israeli military, which has destroyed all of Syria’s previously formidable air defense systems. The Israeli Air Force now has free reign over the skies of Syria. Israeli tanks and soldiers have occupied new strategic parts of the country.

In short, the new Syrian authorities have a gigantic mess to deal with. They do not have a monopoly on the use of force within Syria’s borders, and it’s unlikely they’ll be able to achieve that anytime soon.

That’s why Syria could easily continue being a geopolitical black hole, sucking in blood and treasury from anyone who tries to stabilize a situation that cannot be stabilized.

Presuming Syria can be stabilized—which is a big if—who will pay for the hundreds of billions required for the country’s reconstruction after more than 14 years of war?

Nobody knows.

Turkey and, by extension, NATO & Friends were popping champagne over Assad’s ouster. But the celebration may end soon as they realize they have bit off more than they can chew.

Turkey, the US, and Israel will be responsible for the chaos that comes out of Syria, which is likely to balkanize with unpredictable results.

In any case, I have little doubt that NATO & Friends will try to use growing Turkish influence as a way to reshape the geopolitical landscape in the Middle East in their favor as the arbitrary lines (imposed by the Sykes-Picot Agreement of a century ago) that define most modern Middle East nation states collapse.

In other words, NATO & Friends want an incipient Neo-Ottoman Empire to be the dominant power in the Middle East. BRICS+ wants Iran to be the dominant regional power.

Nobody knows who will prevail in the Middle East and, by extension, WW3.

The situation is fluid, volatile, and uncertain.

There is an excellent chance that NATO & Friends will lose in Ukraine and Taiwan. I think that means they will not be able to stop the emergence of a multipolar world order unless they subdue the Middle East. And they can’t do that unless they overthrow the government in Iran.

The fall of Assad is indeed a setback for BRICS+, but not a decisive defeat.

If NATO & Friends want a decisive victory in the Middle East, they will need to take out the government in Iran.

That’s why I think Iran will be the decisive battlefield of WW3.

Here is an updated geopolitical map of the Middle East and surrounding region as I see it.

With Iran’s allies across the Middle East suffering devastating blows in 2024, the US, Israel, and their allies have the most favorable conditions to attack Iran that have existed in decades.

I suspect they will not let this window of opportunity close without taking advantage of it.

It could happen in 2025.

If an attack on Iran does happen, I believe it will be the defining battle of WW3.

But it will not be a cakewalk…

Unlike most other nation states in the Middle East, Iran (known as Persia before 1935) is not an artificial construct. By race, religion, and social history, it is a nation. European bureaucrats didn’t dream up Iran by drawing zigzags on a map. The map reflects the geographic reality of a country with natural, fortress-like mountain borders. In the east, the Roman Empire generally ended where the Persian Empire began.

The US and its allies have tried to overthrow Iran’s government for over 46 years. They’ve tried pretty much everything short of a full-scale invasion.

In short, NATO & Friends have few other cards to play against Iran.

If the US really wants to decapitate the BRICS+ agenda in the Middle East, it would need to overthrow the Iranian government. That would require waging a full-scale regional war against all of Iran’s allies and launching a ground invasion of Iran.

Remember, during the Iran-Iraq War (1980-1988)—back when Saddam was a “good guy”—he threw over 500,000 Iraqi soldiers at the Iranian meat grinder, had the backing of the US AND the Soviet Union, and used chemical weapons on a scale not seen since WW1… and he barely made a dent in Iran.

The reality is that if the US is serious about invading Iran, it would likely require total mobilization and bringing back the draft. That is not likely to happen, but even if it did, it would not guarantee US victory.

If Iran thought the US was going to invade, it could also develop nuclear weapons as a deterrent within a matter of weeks or less. It might also already have a couple of secretly obtained nukes.

Given those unfavorable prospects, NATO & Friends could decide to use nuclear weapons on Iran preemptively.

Iran is well aware that the US or Israel could use nuclear weapons against it. It has contingency plans for that outcome to ensure the survival of its government. Iran’s plans also likely include making a dash for developing its own nuclear arsenal to be able to respond in kind.

Further, it’s doubtful that Russia and China would just sit back and do nothing if NATO & Friends looked like they might nuke Iran. For example, Russia could decide to station nuclear weapons and Russian soldiers on Iranian soil as a deterrent.

In short, NATO & Friends using nukes on Iran could lead to an unpredictable series of events that could quickly spiral out of control, so I don’t view it as a likely outcome.

The Bottom Line

NATO & Friends don’t have any attractive options when it comes to dealing with Iran.

However, with the sun about to set on the US-led unipolar world order and the most favorable conditions to attack Iran that have existed in decades, they may think it’s their last best chance and go for it in 2025.

What will happen, and who will prevail?

Of course, no one can know that with certainty.

That being said, I think we can count on escalating tensions that could culminate in war with Iran in 2025.

The implications of that are difficult to overstate.

War with Iran would undoubtedly destroy all models for the energy market and cause a global economic collapse.

Most people don’t appreciate how close we are to the precipice of a historical disaster.

Countless millions throughout history were wiped out financially—or worse—during the previous world wars because they failed to see the correct Big Picture and take appropriate action.

Don’t be one of them.

*  *  *

That’s why I just released an urgent new report with all the details, including what you must do to prepare. It’s called The Most Dangerous Economic Crisis in 100 Years… the Top 3 Strategies You Need Right Now. Click here to download the PDF now.

The Trump Administration’s Office of Personnel Management (OPM) has notified the heads of all federal agencies and departments that Diversity Equity and Inclusion (DEI) offices are to be closed by end of day Wednesday, and all staff to be placed on paid leave.

According to the notice issued by Acting OPM Director Charles Ezell, all departments and agencies are to:

• Send an agency-wide notice to employees informing them of the closure and asking employees if they know of any efforts to disguise these programs by using coded or imprecise language
• Send a notification to all employees of Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility (DEIA) offices that they are being placed on paid administrative leave effective immediately as the agency takes steps to close/end all DEIA initiatives, offices and programs.
• Take down all outward facing media (websites, social media accounts, etc.) of DEIA offices
• Withdraw any final or pending documents, directives, orders, materials and equity plans issued by the agency in response to the now-repealed Executive Order 14035, Diversity, Equity, Inclusion and Accessibility in the Federal Workforce (June 25, 2021)
• Cancel any DEIA-related trainings and terminate any DEIA-related contractors

BREAKING: Every government agency was just ordered to begin closing ALL their DEI offices – tomorrow, 5pm is deadline pic.twitter.com/NCCbXw77Io

— End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) January 22, 2025

The heads of agencies and departments are also instructed to share the following with OPM by noon Thursday, Jan. 23;

• A complete list of DEIA offices and any employees who were in those offices as of Nov. 5, 2024
• A complete list of all DEIA-related agency contracts as of Nov. 5, 2024
• Any agency plans to fully comply with the above executive orders and this memorandum

By Friday at 5 p.m., agency heads must submit to OPM:

• A written plan for executing a reduction-in-force action regarding the employees who work in a DEIA office
• A list of all contract descriptions or personnel position descriptions that were changed since Nov. 5, 2024, to obscure their connection to DEIA programs

The action comes after President Trump signed an Executive Order that eliminates all DEI programs within the federal government, and signed another order making it “the official policy of the U.S. government to only recognize two genders: male and female.”

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt confirmed the action on X:

To every reporter asking about this: I can gladly confirm! https://t.co/gRb356vSwO

— Karoline Leavitt (@PressSec) January 22, 2025

Trump also signed an executive order rescinding Lyndon Johnson’s EO which established affirmative action.

One year ago, I laid out a three-part agenda for the bringing colorblind equality to the government. Trump has already issued orders on two of the points. Next up: destroy the false and malicious “disparate impact” standard government-wide.https://t.co/4NDWxnOQSj

— Christopher F. Rufo ⚔️ (@realchrisrufo) January 22, 2025

Meanwhile, the Trump State Department has told all Embassies and Outposts that they can only fly the American Flag at facilities, and no others…

YES!!!!

Trump State Department Tells Embassies and Outposts: Fly Stars and Stripes Only—No More Pride or BLM Flags

“Starting immediately, only the United States of America flag is authorized to be flown or displayed at U.S. facilities, both domestic and abroad, and featured in… pic.twitter.com/yJArHFhTfu

— Rob (@_ROB_29) January 22, 2025

Authored by Kevin Stocklin via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

At a time when thousands of America’s independent cattle farmers are going under each year, and herds falling to a 70-year low, one young couple believes they have found a way to save their family farm.

Livestock farming is now a far cry from what it once was, when ranchers would sell into competitive markets with prices based on quality, as well as prevailing supply and demand.

Today, four global meatpacking corporations—U.S.-based Cargill and Tyson Foods, and Brazilian-based JBS and National Beef/Marfrig—together buy 85 percent of all cattle in the United States, and many once-independent ranchers have devolved into contract labor for these companies, often selling at prices that don’t cover their costs.

The result has been an aggregate loss of 655,000 cattle farms since 1980, with an average of 20,000 ranches going under per year in America over the past five years.

After years of losing money under this system, however, Avery and Marc Wrigglesworth, owners of Lily Hill Farm in West Point, Georgia, decided to take a different path. The only way to survive, they said, was to build their own market that sells directly to customers.

While Avery grew up on the Georgia farm, Marc was raised on Jersey, a small island in the English Channel. They met in Jersey where they both were working office jobs in the finance industry.

In 2019, Avery was told by her father that the family’s farm, originally founded by her grandfather after he returned home to Georgia from a POW camp in Germany after World War II, would be sold. The herd had been sold off, down to 80 cattle, in order to pay debts, and the farm had fallen into what Marc calls a “death spiral.”

What was left was no longer able to generate enough income to keep the business going. Avery and Marc decided to quit their jobs and move to Georgia, hoping that the farm could be saved.

“We are now the third generation, and there’s always been something that’s drawn me to this place,” Avery told The Epoch Times. “It would have broken my heart to see it parceled up, and houses and subdivisions built all over it.

“I just felt like it needed to have one last chance to see if we could turn it around.”

Struggling to Stay Afloat

They soon realized that the farm could not survive the way it was being operated.

“We were just selling the calf crop at the local stockyards—that’s generally how these cow-calf operations sell,” Marc said. But they weren’t getting enough from the processors to pay their expenses, and they had to find another way.

They decided, rather than selling to the big packing companies, to try selling directly to customers.

“It was a leap of faith, but we had no other option,” Avery said. “In the three years we’d been running this place, we had a net operating loss of nearly $600,000, so it was either pack it in and leave with our tail between our legs, or take an even bigger leap and see if this will work.”

They used their social media skills to build a base of customers, but making the switch cost them both time and money, depleting their savings.

“We just had to bite the bullet and keep everything back for two years with no farm revenue,” Marc said.

Avery had already built up a following on Instagram, so they had the beginnings of a customer base. During the two years of transition, they designed their online store and expanded their following, and Avery sharpened her photography skills for a steady stream of online posts.

They found a company in Alabama that would do the meat processing for them. Once processed, the beef is returned to them, stored in a walk-in freezer on their farm, and shipped out to customers via UPS, packed in dry ice.

Two years ago, the Lily Hill Farm’s website and online store went live, selling beef directly to customers that is pasture-raised “without additional growth hormones, antibiotics, or animal by-products,” the website states. And through their social media sites, Avery and Marc work to establish personal connections with customers.

“They want to know where their products are coming from,” Avery said. “They want to know it’s a family behind it, and they want to know the people and the story behind the products they’re purchasing.”

After years in the red, this new business model has returned the farm to profitability.

“When we launched in April of 2022, we hit the ground running, and it’s been unstoppable ever since,” Marc said.

Read the rest here…

Just in time for Pete Hegseth’s confirmation hearing, his brother’s ex-wife, Danielle Hegseth, came out with a wild, Kavanaugh-esque claim that Pete Hegseth, President Trump’s pick for Defense Secretary, made his second wife ‘fear for her safety.’

Except, Hegseth’s second wife completely denied the claim, and NBC News decided to run the story anyway.

When asked for comment, Hegseth’s ex, Samantha Hegseth, told the outlet, “I do not believe your information to be accurate, and I have cc’d my lawyer,” adding “There was no physical abuse in my marriage. This is the only further statement I will make to you.”

An affidavit containing the allegation was delivered to Senators on Tuesday, the receipt of which came after Senate Armed Services Committee staffers were in contact with the ex-sister-in-law for several days.

And who was it fed to? Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI), after he requested a “statement” from the ex-sister-in-law, “attesting to your personal knowledge about Mr. Hegseth’s fitness to occupy this important position.”

And what’s this? Jack Reed is connected to the Steele Dossier used to smear President Trump as a Russian asset!

Now, Jack Reed is involved in another highly dubious Trump allegation.

First story: https://t.co/nZ7DJRCydZ

Second story: https://t.co/27Nnj868X9

— Chuck Ross (@ChuckRossDC) January 21, 2025

To summarize: The ex-wife of Pete Hegseth’s brother lodged a false accusation against him, which the alleged victim denied, and NBC News decided to run the piece anyway.

Or as journalist Kyle Becker puts it, Alinsky 101.

Alinsky 101. The editors know the public won’t buy pieces criticizing Hegseth saying everything is just fine at the Pentagon and that endless foreign wars are cool, so they resort to smears and character assassination.

It is journalistic malpractice to run an accusation when the…

— Kyle Becker (@kylenabecker) January 21, 2025

In this case, Dem Sen. Jack Reed just so happens to contact the source on Jan. 18, who then comes back w/ a bombshell claim about Hegseth and his ex-wife, which both of them vehemently deny on the record. But news orgs have their hook to make a story on it, truth be damned.

— Chuck Ross (@ChuckRossDC) January 21, 2025

Remember when NBC News worked with a foreign ‘misinformation’ outfit to smear ZeroHedge, lied about the details, and then stealth-edited the article? We remember.