A federal judge on Wednesday unsealed a purported suicide note attributed to Jeffrey Epstein, written before his first reported incident in July 2019 and discovered by his then-cellmate, Nicholas Tartaglione, tucked inside a graphic novel. The undated, unsigned document – released as part of Tartaglione’s unrelated criminal case docket – contains lines such as “They investigated me for month – found NOTHING!!!” and references to saying goodbye. It has been kept under seal for nearly seven years.

The note’s release comes amid a flood of Epstein-related document dumps in 2025–2026, yet it does little to quiet the persistent, deeply unsettling questions about how Epstein actually died on August 10, 2019, inside the Metropolitan Correctional Center (MCC) in Manhattan. Official ruling: suicide by hanging. Public consensus, reinforced by every major new tranche of files: something about that story has never added up – and the weirdness only multiplies with each disclosure.

The Official Timeline vs. Reality on the Ground

Epstein was found unresponsive in his cell shortly before 6:30 a.m. on August 10, 2019. Attorney General William Barr immediately called it an “apparent suicide.” The medical examiner ruled it a hanging. Case closed – or so the government insisted.

The facts on the ground were different:

• Less than three weeks earlier, on July 23, Epstein had been found semi-conscious with an orange cloth tied around his neck. He was placed on suicide watch for barely 31 hours before being removed, despite a psychologist’s note that he “needs a cellmate” for safety.
• On August 9, his cellmate was transferred out with no replacement – in direct violation of standing orders sent to more than 70 staff members.
• Hours before his death, Epstein was allowed a 20-minute unmonitored phone call from the SHU shower area using a non-inmate phone line, violating every Bureau of Prisons protocol. Logs omitted the call entirely.
• His cell contained a hoard of extra linens and blankets – material explicitly prohibited because it can be fashioned into nooses. No required cell search occurred that day.

Then there’s this…

When jail officials asked Mr. Epstein about red marks on his neck after the incident in July, he first said that Mr. Tartaglione had attacked him and that he was not suicidal. Mr. Tartaglione has long denied assaulting Mr. Epstein, who later told jail officials he “never had any issues” with his cellmate.

Mr. Tartaglione said he gave the note to his lawyers because he believed it could have been helpful if Mr. Epstein continued to claim that he had tried to hurt him. Mr. Tartaglione was convicted in 2023 and is now serving four life sentences. He has maintained his innocence and has appealed his conviction. -NYT

Then came the night itself.

The Orange Shape, the Missing Noose, and the Sleeping Guards

Newly released footage and DOJ admissions confirm that at approximately 10:39 p.m. on August 9, an “orange-colored shape” moved up the L Tier staircase toward Epstein’s isolated, locked tier. The observation log initially described it as possibly “an inmate escorted up.” The DOJ’s Office of Inspector General later called it an unidentified corrections officer carrying orange “linen or bedding.” Officers on duty insisted no linen exchange happened that night. Forensic video experts reviewing the pixelated clip concluded it was far more likely a person in an orange jumpsuit.

No one was supposed to have access. The tier was supposed to be under constant visual monitoring. Instead, guards Tova Noel and Michael Thomas – both later fired – falsified more than 75 entries on count sheets and round logs. They were asleep or idle for hours. Required 30-minute checks were never performed after roughly 10:40 p.m. Noel had googled “Latest Epstein jail” at 5:42 a.m. and 5:52 a.m. the morning Epstein was found; she had also made multiple large cash deposits in the preceding months.

The ligature itself – the actual noose – has never been properly accounted for. Guards gave conflicting statements about removing it. One collected item was later ruled not to be the ligature used. It simply vanished from the official record.

Autopsy Oddities That Still Haunt the Case

Pathologist Dr. Michael Baden, hired by Epstein’s brother Mark, examined the autopsy photos and reached a stark conclusion: the neck fractures (bilateral thyroid cartilage plus left hyoid) were “more consistent with ligature homicidal strangulation” than suicidal hanging.

He noted he had reviewed over a thousand jail hangings and had never seen three fractures like these in a suicide.

👀 Newly surfaced surveillance footage from the night of Jeffrey Epstein’s death … and it appears to show prison guards hanging out just steps away from his cell during the suspected timeframe he had taken his own life.

🎥 DOJ pic.twitter.com/BP6ksnChCi

— TMZ (@TMZ) March 21, 2026

Additional red flags from the released medical files and autopsy:

• Epstein’s prostate was described as enlarged – yet prison and prior medical records indicated he had undergone a radical prostatectomy years earlier.
• A documented 6 cm lipoma in the left supraclavicular fossa (visible on multiple prior MRIs) was never mentioned in the neck dissection.
• Differences in ear shape, nose contour, and other features between the body and known Epstein photographs have fueled persistent body-swap speculation.
• Ruptured capillaries in the eyes and other trauma patterns aligned more closely with manual strangulation.

The cell was never treated as a crime scene. No fingerprints were lifted from the ligature area. No fabric analysis was performed on the actual material used.

Post-Death Shredding and the 4Chan Anomaly

Less than a week after Epstein’s body was removed, MCC staff conducted a frantic shredding operation. An inmate ordered to help dispose of the bags later told investigators he had “never seen this amount of bags of shredded documents.” A corrections officer called the FBI’s National Threat Operations Center on August 16, 2019, reporting the suspicious volume. Count slips for all dates prior to August 10 were later reported “missing” when requested by prosecutors.

Separately, a 4Chan post appeared 38 minutes before the official announcement of Epstein’s death, claiming he had been “switched out.” The FBI subpoenaed Apple, AT&T, and others in connection with the post.

Meanwhile in January, the DOJ released roughly three million pages, 180,000 images, and 2,000 videos. Additional tranches followed. A July 2025 joint DOJ-FBI memo declared there was “no vast human trafficking or sexual blackmail network,” no client list, and definitively ruled the death a suicide. Yet the same files contain inmate testimony of guards saying “Dudes, you killed that dude” and “If he is dead, we’re going to cover it up,” plus references to “Miss Noel killed Jeffrey.”

House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer subpoenaed guard Tova Noel in March 2026. FBI officers have gone on record raising alarms about document destruction and potential obstruction. ZeroHedge’s March 2026 coverage documented how the cover-up suspicions have only deepened with each new release.

Bottom line – Epstein had dirt on some of the most powerful people in the world. He died in federal custody under circumstances that read like a textbook case of how not to run a high-profile prisoner’s watch. Cameras failed at the exact moment they were needed. Guards falsified records. Evidence disappeared. Documents were shredded while investigators watched. A mysterious orange figure moved through restricted space. The noose vanished. The autopsy doesn’t match the medical history. And now, in May 2026, we finally see a suicide note from weeks earlier – a note that says “they investigated me for a month and found NOTHING.”

This whole thing has been a joke from the beginning…

Authored by Frank Miele via RealClearPolitics,

The Supreme Court decides cases. But it also decides when to decide them – and that timing can be just as consequential as the ruling itself.

Now we have a real-world example.

In a closely watched decision last week, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that Louisiana’s creation of a second majority-black congressional district violated the Constitution, holding that race cannot be used too heavily in drawing political maps, even to comply with the Voting Rights Act.

Reasonable people can agree with that conclusion. The Constitution promises equal protection under the law, and the idea that race should not dominate redistricting decisions is consistent with that principle. For years, the court has struggled to reconcile the Voting Rights Act with the Equal Protection Clause. This ruling moves that balance in a more colorblind direction.

But the substance of the ruling is only part of the story.

The timing matters too.

The case was argued twice – first in March 2025 and again in October – and for months it sat undecided, even as the justices’ questioning during oral arguments suggested that a conservative majority was likely to strike down race-driven congressional districts. Some observers questioned whether the delay reflected more than ordinary deliberation, given how the timing of the ruling could affect the current election cycle. But whatever the reason, states were left waiting, unsure how the law would ultimately be interpreted.

Meanwhile, political calendars did not stop. In an unusual step, both Republican- and Democrat-led legislatures have been working to redraw congressional maps mid-decade, partly in response to political pressure from President Trump. But they could not know whether the court’s interpretation of the racial component of redistricting would change – or how.

Each state was left without certainty as the midterm elections approached. Louisiana was already in the middle of absentee voting for congressional elections when the court’s ruling invalidated its district map. The governor said he had no choice but to suspend the House elections in response. Even prior to the ruling, Mississippi’s governor signed an executive order calling for a special legislative session to redraw districts 21 days after the much-anticipated decision. And in Florida, Gov. Ron DeSantis had already positioned lawmakers to act, placing redistricting on the agenda of a special session, ensuring the state could move quickly once the court ruled.

Most other states are scrambling to determine how the court’s ruling impacts them, especially during the current election cycle. For the most part, redistricting is not instantaneous. It requires legislation, legal review, and often additional litigation. Every week that passes reduces the number of states that can realistically redraw maps before the midterms. A decision handed down earlier in the term might have produced one set of outcomes. A decision handed down now may produce another.

That is not a criticism of the ruling itself. It is a recognition that timing is not neutral.

Most Americans focus on what the court decides. Far fewer consider the significance of when those decisions are released. But in a system where legal rulings intersect with political processes, timing can shape outcomes just as surely as legal reasoning.

Whether intentional or not, the court’s discretion over timing creates an opportunity for influence that extends beyond the law. A delay – even one rooted in ordinary deliberation – can affect elections, legislative agendas and, ultimately, who holds power. But what if the delays are intentional? Might the minority justices in the Voting Rights Act decision knowingly have withheld their dissents as a tactic to postpone the ruling’s impact? We will probably never know, but even the possibility suggests the need for reform.

But how could reform occur? In most areas of our government, the people hold the key. Members of Congress must answer to voters. Presidents face elections and constant political pressure. When procedures break down or public confidence erodes, those institutions are pushed – sometimes reluctantly – to adapt.

The Supreme Court is different.

Its members serve for life. Its internal processes are self-governed. Congress can shape the court at the margins – including aspects of its jurisdiction – but it does not and realistically cannot control the internal mechanics of how and when the court issues its decisions. Nor can the president. That is a function of the separation of powers.

The result is an institution largely insulated from the kinds of external pressures that force reform elsewhere in government.

Within that insulation lies a vulnerability.

Timing, left entirely to internal discretion, can become a form of influence. A majority controls when a decision is issued. But the minority, through the drafting of concurring and dissenting opinions, can affect how long deliberations continue. A chief justice may have procedural tools that shape the pace of the court’s work, but up until now, most chief justices have given court minorities considerable discretion to determine their own timelines.

We have seen how that discretion operates under pressure. In the Dobbs case, a draft majority opinion overturning Roe v. Wade was leaked weeks before the final decision was issued. During that period, the court faced intense public pressure, protests at the homes of justices, and heightened security concerns. If a majority justice had been removed from the court before the decision was finalized, through intimidation or even assassination, the result would have been a tie, effectively nullifying the ruling as a national precedent. Yet the court did not accelerate its timetable.

That is not a judgment about the justices’ motives. It is a reflection of the reality of the court’s process. A final decision does not emerge until the full cycle of majority, concurring, and dissenting opinions is complete. That means the timing of a ruling is not controlled by the majority alone. It is shaped by the pace of the court as a whole.

The power to affect that timing – even under extraordinary circumstances – rests entirely within the court itself.

That is precisely why a clock is needed. It would not assume bad faith. It would remove the opportunity for timing itself to become a form of influence.

If timing can shape outcomes, then timing should be governed.

The solution need not be complicated. Chief Justice John Roberts could adopt a formal internal rule requiring that opinions – both majority and dissenting – be finalized within a defined period. That period could be measured from oral argument or from the circulation of the majority draft. It could allow for limited extensions in extraordinary cases.

But it would establish a principle – that decisions will be issued within a reasonable and predictable timeframe.

Critics will say that such rules could rush deliberation. That concern is real. But delay has costs as well – costs that are now visible.

A court that wields immense power over the direction of the country should not also wield unlimited discretion over when that power is exercised. It’s time the Supreme Court recognized this reality – and governed itself accordingly.

Frank Miele, retired editor of the Daily Inter Lake in Kalispell, Mont., is a columnist for RealClearPolitics. His book “The Media Matrix: What If Everything You Know Is Fake” is available from his Amazon author page. Visit him at HeartlandDiaryUSA.com or follow him on Facebook @HeartlandDiaryUSA and on X/Gettr @HeartlandDiary.

Here’s something that could go incredibly well or spectacularly wrong: The Trump administration’s flagship program for American children – the so-called Trump accounts – could soon get a dramatic upgrade. White House and Treasury Department officials are in internal discussions about letting the world’s wealthiest individuals donate shares of their companies directly into the accounts, a move that would transform the program from a conservative cash-and-index-fund vehicle into a potential magnet for high-growth tech stock.

The accounts, formally known as Section 530A accounts, are scheduled to begin accepting contributions on July 4. They were created as part of last year’s major domestic policy legislation and have already attracted billions of dollars in philanthropic pledges. Until now, the rules have been strict: only cash, invested exclusively in diversified index funds. That restriction may soon change, according to the NY Times. 

Brad Gerstner, founder of Altimeter Capital and the architect behind the 530A program, has been leading the push. Gerstner, who received a public shout-out during the president’s State of the Union address in February, has been meeting with administration officials to explore the idea. The proposal would allow ultra-wealthy donors to contribute appreciated stock – for example, Elon Musk donating Tesla or SpaceX shares, or Nvidia’s Jensen Huang contributing Nvidia stock – without triggering capital-gains taxes.

Proponents see two major upsides:

• Children could gain exposure to tomorrow’s biggest winners. Instead of modest, steady returns from broad index funds, millions of young Americans might own slices of high-growth companies for decades.
• Donors could give more, and more efficiently. By donating stock at its current fair-market value, billionaires would receive a full charitable deduction while avoiding the capital-gains tax they would owe if they sold the shares first.

Interest is already surging. At this year’s Milken Institute Global Conference, multiple ultra-wealthy individuals and companies signaled they are preparing to give. The $6.25 billion pledge from Michael and Susan Dell in December is seen as a bellwether; many others are now expected to follow.

Internal Debate and Risks

Not everyone inside the Treasury Department is comfortable with the idea. The original design deliberately limited investments to diversified index funds precisely to shield children from the volatility of individual stocks. Allowing direct donations of single-company shares – especially highly valued, concentrated tech holdings – could expose millions of young account holders to wild market swings over 18-year horizons.

Critics inside the building are also raising longer-term concerns:

• Will today’s hottest stocks still be dominant decades from now?
• Could Trump accounts become a de facto “lock-up” vehicle for billions of dollars’ worth of founder shares that cannot be sold for years?

Changing the rules would almost certainly require legislation to amend the statute. Some officials are exploring whether new Treasury guidance or even an executive order could achieve a similar result, but legal experts say a statutory fix is the cleaner path.

The conversations are still at an early stage, but momentum is building quickly. With July 4 rapidly approaching and billions already pledged, the White House faces a clear choice: keep the program simple and conservative, or open it up to the full force of private-sector wealth creation – and risk.

Either way, the Trump accounts have already succeeded in one important respect: they have turned children’s long-term investing into a national conversation. The question now is whether that conversation will include the world’s most valuable stocks.

Authored by Steve Watson via Modernity.news,

Researchers have proposed a theoretical approach that could allow messages to be sent into the past using principles from quantum mechanics. Indeed, it could be happening right now already!

The concept does not enable physical travel through time but focuses on information transfer through causal loops at the quantum scale.

The work, accepted for publication in Physical Review Letters, builds on ideas from general relativity and quantum entanglement. 

A technique inspired by the film Interstellar suggests a new way of communicating backwards in time, but it could help improve conventional communication systems as well https://t.co/FXQTvhE6uE

— New Scientist (@newscientist) May 2, 2026

It draws a parallel to the causal loop depicted in Christopher Nolan’s film Interstellar, where a message is sent to the past via a watch.

Co-author Dr Kaiyuan Ji, a researcher at Cornell University, told New Scientist: “The father remembers how the daughter decodes his future message. So he can instruct himself on what is the best way to encode the message.”

Professor Seth Lloyd of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) described an earlier related experiment from 2010: “It was the equivalent of sending a photon a few nanoseconds backwards in time, and having it try to kill its former self.”

Lloyd noted the practical challenges: “Nobody’s built an actual physical, closed time-like curve, and there are reasons to think it’s very hard to make one. But all channels are noisy.”

The paper explains how prior knowledge of how a message was decoded could improve encoding in the future: “The father, who is in the future, may retrieve his memory of past events he has witnessed, even including the daughter’s decoding of the message which he is about to send! It would thus not be surprising that he will consult his memory of the daughter’s decoding when encoding his message, so as to maximize the efficiency of the communication.”

According to the research, this approach could make backward time messages clearer than those sent forward in normal time, even over noisy channels. 

The team suggests the idea could be tested experimentally at the quantum level and may offer insights into communication through noisy systems.

The concept relies on closed time-like curves (CTCs), paths allowed by general relativity where something could theoretically return to its own past. 

On macroscopic scales, creating such curves would require immense energy, but quantum systems may permit analogous effects through entanglement.

Quantum entanglement links particles so that the state of one instantly influences the other, regardless of distance. 

The research explores whether this “spooky action at a distance,” as Einstein called it, could be interpreted as information moving backward in time.

While the proposal remains theoretical, it highlights that nothing in current physics strictly forbids certain forms of time communication at the quantum scale. 

Future experiments could help clarify how information behaves in such systems and potentially improve real-world technologies.

Your support is crucial in helping us defeat mass censorship. Please consider donating via Locals or check out our unique merch. Follow us on X @ModernityNews.

Federal agents from the FBI executed court-authorized search warrants Wednesday morning at the Portsmouth legislative office of longtime Democratic Virginia State Sen. L. Louise Lucas and at an adjacent cannabis retail business she co-owns, as part of an ongoing federal corruption probe tied to marijuana dispensary operations.

The raids, which also extended to other unspecified locations across the commonwealth, stunned Virginia political circles given Lucas’s status as one of the state’s most powerful and influential lawmakers. Lucas, 82, who has represented Portsmouth in the Senate since 1992 and serves as President Pro Tempore, was not arrested and returned home by midday, according to her longtime political consultant. No charges have been filed against her or anyone else publicly identified in connection with the searches.

Details of the Operation

The FBI’s Norfolk field office confirmed in a statement that agents were “executing a court-authorized federal search warrant in Portsmouth, Va.” FBI spokeswoman Cassandra Temple told reporters on scene that the bureau was conducting “court-authorized law enforcement activity today” but provided no further details on the targets or allegations.

Eyewitness accounts and news footage described a significant law enforcement presence: approximately 8 – 10 agents in marked uniforms at Lucas’s office in the Lucas Professional Center, with staff ordered outside and prevented from re-entering while agents carried out boxes of materials. At the neighboring cannabis dispensary, known as The Cannabis Outlet (or Cannabis Outlet), SWAT team members arrived with weapons drawn, ordered occupants to exit with hands raised, and placed at least three people in handcuffs before taking them into custody. Lucas arrived in the parking lot shortly after the operation began and told a reporter she had “no idea” what was happening.

A person close to the senator told CNN that agents seized electronics and other items. The investigation, which sources described as having opened during the Biden administration and continuing under the current administration, focuses on possible corruption and bribery related to marijuana dispensary businesses.

Political Context: Redistricting Champion

The timing of the raids has fueled speculation and partisan debate because of Lucas’s prominent role in Virginia’s recent congressional redistricting battle. Last month, Virginia voters approved—by a margin of more than 100,000 votes – a referendum allowing mid-decade redrawing of congressional district lines under certain conditions. Lucas was a leading architect of the effort, which produced new maps that could shift Virginia’s congressional delegation from its current 6–5 Democratic edge to as many as 10 Democratic seats out of 11.

Democrats framed the redistricting as a necessary counter to Republican-led gerrymandering efforts in other states ahead of the 2026 midterms. Lucas was characteristically blunt in public exchanges, responding on social media to Texas Sen. Ted Cruz’s criticism of the maps as a Democratic gerrymander with the words: “You all started it and we fucking finished it.”

“While we await the full facts of the investigation, it must be acknowledged that this FBI raid occurs in the broader context of President [Donald] Trump’s repeated abuse of the Department of Justice to target his perceived political opponents,” Rep. Bobby Scott (D-VA) posted on X. 

The FBI has not publicly linked the searches to redistricting. Official statements emphasize only that the probe is ongoing and that there is no threat to public safety.

Authored by Bryan Hyde via American Greatness,

Multiple high-ranking officials in the Washington, DC Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) are facing termination in connection with allegations about how they handled and possibly manipulated crime statistics in the district.

Breitbart reports that three MPD officials told The Washington Post that “multiple high-ranking” officials—all captains or above, all in leadership—were given “papers saying the department intends to fire them.”

According to a DC Police Union press release, the anticipated terminations are directly related to an investigation into allegations that the officials engaged in direct manipulation of crime data to minimize the level of crime in DC.

The union, which represents 3,000 MPD officers, welcomed the decision to terminate the officials, saying, “These actions, tied directly to the department’s completed Internal Affairs investigation into the deliberate manipulation of crime data, mark a long-overdue step toward justice and the restoration of integrity with MPD.”

The Washington Post reports, “The District has reported a decline in overall crime in recent years after a historic spike in 2023. But some in D.C. police circles have long complained that certain managers routinely reduced the severity of crime classifications to make their police districts appear safer or avoid criticism from top department brass.”

In some districts, armed home invasions were written down as “trespassing” instead, dropping a vioIent felony to a low-level misdemeanor, in order to manipulate the crime stats.

The 13 individuals who were served termination papers have not been fired yet as they are entitled to due process under the department’s general orders.

Interim MPD Chief Jeffrey Carroll said, “The administrative process must be allowed to take its course, and that process is outlined in our MPD general orders.”

Carroll added, “Let me be clear, we have made meaningful progress over the last three years in reducing crime. Homicides, shootings and carjackings have fallen steadily since 2023.”

NBC 4 reports that three of the high-level officials worked very closely with former Chief Pamela Smith, including her second-in-command and at least one assistant chief who oversaw patrol in half of DC.

Summary

• US Navy jet fires on Iran-flagged tanker trying to reach Iranian waters & port.

• Axios reports that the White House is nearing a preliminary deal with Iran to end the war, as Trump post appears to offer olive branch. Other reports say just hammering out at ‘framework’ for ‘monthlong’ talks.

• White House says it expects a response to the latest offer within 48 hours.

• Iran’s initial response via media & national security spox: US demands are unrealistic & do not reflect reality, & Axios report based on too much ‘speculation’.

• A key caveat of the US offered deal is that Iran would commit to a moratorium on uranium enrichment, & Washington wants a 20-year ban on this; Iran & China FMs coordinate messaging in Beijing, denying Iran’s intent to build nuclear bomb.

*  *  *

US Jet Fires On Iranian Tanker Trying To Pass

So much for that ceasefire and alleged ‘pause’ in US naval blockade actions, as things just took another escalatory turn. In this case, a rare live fire incident unfolded Wednesday in Gulf waters as a US jet launched from the Lincoln carrier fired on and possibly disabled an Iranian-flagged tanker, per the officials US Central Command statement:

U.S. forces operating in the Gulf of Oman enforced blockade measures by disabling an Iranian-flagged unladen oil tanker attempting to sail toward an Iranian port at 9 a.m. ET, May 6.

U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) forces observed M/T Hasna as it transited international waters enroute to an Iranian port on the Gulf of Oman. American forces issued multiple warnings and informed the Iranian-flagged vessel it was in violation of the U.S. blockade.

After Hasna’s crew failed to comply with repeated warnings, U.S. forces disabled the tanker’s rudder by firing several rounds from the 20mm cannon gun of a U.S. Navy F/A-18 Super Hornet launched from USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN 72). Hasna is no longer transiting to Iran.

The Pentagon/CENTCOM statement then emphasized, “The U.S. blockade against ships attempting to enter or depart Iranian ports remains in full effect. CENTCOM forces continue to act deliberately and professionally to ensure compliance.” Tehran’s response to this will be interesting, and follows prior alleged attacks this week on the UAE.

‘Framework’ Being Hammered Out for ‘Monthlong Period of Talks’

Iran’s Foreign Ministry has said that Iran’s response to the United States has not yet been presented to mediator Pakistan, as the WSJ reports that the US and Iranian sides are currently trying to hammer out a one-page memorandum of understanding which features 14-points. This would “lay out a framework” – the report says, for a “monthlong period of talks to end the war.”

Given that agreement cannot even be found on the ‘framework’ for future talks, it seems the process is not very advanced at all – but is perhaps still back at square one, with headlines in the US way out front, and likely overly optimistic. 

CNN citing the White House: “The White House received positive feedback from Pakistani mediators on Tuesday that the Iranians were progressing toward a compromise.” And more from WSJ:

Iran’s mission to the UN said that “the only viable solution in the Strait of Hormuz is clear: a permanent end to the war, the lifting of the maritime blockade, and the restoration of normal passage.”

Key Timing of Wang-Araghchi Meeting in Beijing

During Iranian Foreign Minister Araghchi’s visit to Beijing on Wednesday, China’s Foreign Minister Wang Yi pushed for the rapid reopening of the Strait of Hormuz and a halt to the fighting. Araghchi echoed the urgency, saying, “Currently, it is possible to resolve the issue of reopening the Strait of Hormuz as soon as possible.” Wang called for a “comprehensive ceasefire” and stressed that “the international community shares a common concern for restoring normal and safe passage through the Strait,” urging swift action.

The coordinated messaging reflects shared economic and strategic interests, especially as US naval actions have disrupted Iranian oil flows to China. Wang also signaled support for Tehran’s position, stating China “appreciates Iran’s pledge to not develop nuclear weapons,” while Iran continues to insist its nuclear program is peaceful and maintains its right to uranium enrichment as a matter of sovereignty.

Wang reinforced Beijing’s stance by warning that “a comprehensive ceasefire brooks no delay” and that negotiations must continue, while US Secretary of State Marco Rubio has called on China to pressure Iran to ease its blockade of the strait.

Alarmed Reaction from Israel

An Israeli official cited in Times of Israel said Israel did not know that President Trump was close to a deal with Iran to end the fighting and reopen the Strait of Hormuz, even as global headlines pointed to progress. The official said Israel had been preparing for escalation, reflecting recent reports that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government was waiting for US approval to resume its aerial campaign following 38 days of strikes under Operation Epic Fury.

US messaging has shifted rapidly. with Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Tuesday having announced the end of Operation Epic Fury and a pivot to Project Freedom focused on reopening Hormuz, while Trump later declared a pause to allow negotiations. The mixed signals from Washington created confusion as diplomacy and military positioning unfolded simultaneously.

Both Iran and Israel signaled readiness to escalate despite the diplomatic push. Iran warned its “finger is on the trigger,” while Israeli military chief Lt. Gen. Eyal Zamir said forces have multiple targets prepared inside Iran and remain on high alert. He emphasized ongoing coordination with US forces and readiness to resume a broad campaign if fighting restarts.

More Official Iran Denials: Too Much ‘Speculation’

The latest response out of Tehran via Tasnim: “Despite claims by US media that Iran and the US are close to a final one-page agreement to end the war, Iran has not yet given an official response to the Americans’ final text, which contains some unacceptable clauses.”

And separately Iran’s ISNA calls parts of the Axios report “speculation” – also reiterating the country has rejected some recent US proposals, as they are “unrealistic”. However, an Iranian spokesperson has said that Iran is indeed “reviewing the US proposal to end the war.”

Trump Admits: ‘Too Soon’

And now a bit of rapid narrative reversal, coming from President Trump himself, after once again a likely premature early morning Axios report with overly optimistic language. Trump’s fresh words are via the NY Post:

President Donald Trump said it’s “too soon” to plan peace talks with Iran despite reports of a near deal, downplaying prospects of imminent negotiations in Pakistan. He warned that if Iran accepts terms, hostilities could end and the Strait of Hormuz reopen—but failure to agree would trigger intensified military action.

Indeed the Iranian reaction issued via media reports also suggests this is the case, that all the talk of an agreement being close is premature, and there remains immense hurdles and a long way to go. Axios’ Barak Ravid still insists that “the sources said this was the closest the parties had been to an agreement since the war began.”

Initial Word From Tehran: Doesn’t Reflect Reality

Iranian initial reaction through its media: “What US media outlets are publishing about the details of the negotiations does not reflect the reality of what is happening, according to AI Araby citing Iranian Sources.”

“Progress has been made in talks with Washington through Pakistan, but it has not yet reached a level that would lead to an agreement,” the statement says. The Iranians are also clearly sticking by their approach which says the nuclear issue is a non-starter and that talks must focus on opening Hormuz and finding a final end to the conflict. “The negotiations are focused on ending the war, not the nuclear issue,” the statement in Al Araby continues.

And then the final criticism of Washington’s approach: “The negotiations are still facing the intransigent American approach and excessive demands.” And further, this: 

Ebrahim Rezaei dismissed U.S. demands as unrealistic, saying Washington won’t gain through conflict what it failed to secure in talks. He added Iran is ready to act and warned of a severe, regret-inducing response to any provocation.

Here is the full statement from the Iranian Spokesperson of the National Security and Foreign Policy Commission (via machine translation):

Trump Issues Carrot & Stick

The below is a fresh Trump Truth Social Post on Wednesday morning, warning the Iranians that the Hormuz Strait must be “open to all”. However, the president continues, if Tehran doesn’t agree then “the bombing starts” and it will be at a “much higher level and intensity than it was before”. 

All of this has followed an awkward 24 hours of drastically different signals coming from various top officials of the US administration.

Marco Rubio says the goal of the war in Iran is now to restore it “back to the way it was” before Trump started the war in Iran pic.twitter.com/G1E9qyxMc4

— Headquarters (@HQNewsNow) May 5, 2026

WH Expects Iranian Response In Next 48 Hours

Axios reports that the White House is nearing a preliminary deal with Iran to end the war. This is based on a 14-point, one-page memorandum that creates a 30-day negotiating window for a broader nuclear and Strait of Hormuz deal and follows President Trump’s announcement last night of “great progress” and a “complete and final” deal nearing. 

“The U.S. expects Iranian responses on several key points in the next 48 hours.

Nothing has been agreed yet, but sources said this was the closest the parties had been to an agreement since the war began,” Axios wrote in the report.

Here are the key points:

• Iran would commit to a moratorium on uranium enrichment. The duration is still under negotiation, with the U.S. pushing for 20 years, Iran offering five, and sources suggesting 12 to 15 years may be the likely spot.

• Iran would also pledge not to seek nuclear weapons, accept enhanced inspections, potentially halt underground nuclear facility operations, and possibly remove highly enriched uranium from the country.

• The U.S. would gradually lift sanctions and release billions of dollars in frozen Iranian funds.

• Shipping restrictions through the Hormuz chokepoint and the U.S. naval blockade would be gradually lifted during the 30-day talks. If negotiations fail, U.S. forces could restore the blockade or resume military action.

Axios said talks are being led by Trump envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner with top Iranian officials, both directly and through mediators.

News of this sparked risk on in U.S. equity index futures, WTI fell to the $95-a-barrel handle, and U.S. Treasury yields dipped.

Market Response:

S&P500 Futs

Brent Futs

WTI Futs

UST10Y

BTC/USD

developing…

Authored by Simon Watkins via oilprice.com,

• The Moscow meeting reinforced a long-standing imbalance, with Iran seeking deeper support while Russia offered only vague diplomatic backing.
• The 20-year Iran–Russia deal structurally favors Moscow, especially in energy and trade terms, leaving Tehran with limited economic and strategic upside.
• Russia’s growing military and economic strain reduces its ability to support Iran, exposing the fragility of the partnership.

Iran has a long history of being screwed over by Russia, and last week’s meeting in Moscow between Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi and Russian President Vladimir Putin over the U.S.–Israel–Iran war suggests nothing in that dynamic is about to change, according to extremely well-placed sources on both sides who spoke exclusively to OilPrice.com over the weekend. On the one hand, Tehran’s perennially baseless optimism that “this time will be different” was on full display in Araghchi’s excited praise for the marvels of the two countries’ so called ‘strategic relationship’. On the other hand, Moscow responded with all the warmth of an international telephone operator: Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said only that Russia stands ready to offer “goodwill or mediation services”, with no indication of any upgrade to the relationship service package. It fits so neatly into the familiar pattern of this abusive relationship that one wonders whether social services should be called. Or perhaps Moscow’s disinterest is merely an act — a way of masking the deep and broad assistance from Tehran that it so clearly craves?

The theoretical basis of this relationship is the 20-year comprehensive cooperation deal between Iran and Russia — formally titled The Treaty on the Basis of Mutual Relations and Principles of Cooperation between Iran and Russia — approved by Iran’s late Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, on 18 January 2024, as I exclusively reported in OilPrice.com at the time. It replaced the 10-year deal signed in March 2001 (extended twice by five years) and was expanded in duration, scope and scale, particularly in the defence and energy sectors. In several respects, the new deal complemented key elements of the all-encompassing Iran-China 25-Year Comprehensive Cooperation Agreement, first revealed anywhere in the world in my 3 September 2019 article and analysed in full in my latest book on the new global oil market order. The similarities were deliberate, designed to make the division of the key strategic assets most coveted by Moscow and Beijing easier to manage in practice. Related: China Orders Refiners to Ignore U.S. Sanctions on Key Iranian Oil Buyers

As with much of Russia’s foreign policy dealings, the devil was in the details. As a sign of how things would pan out for Tehran in the rest of the document, Russia stood to benefit at Iran’s expense in the key energy sector to begin with. The deal gave Russia the first right of extraction in the Iranian section of the Caspian Sea, including the potentially huge Chalous field. This came on top of Russia’s startlingly brazen theft in 2019 of at least US$3.2 trillion in revenues from Iran through the lost value of energy products across their shared Caspian assets going forward. The same right of first extraction for Russia was also applied in the new 20-year deal to several of Iran’s major oil and gas fields in the Khorramshahr and nearby Ilam provinces that border Iraq, which China had not already prioritised for its own needs. Several of these sites had the broader financial and geopolitical benefits attached to their being shared fields with Iraq. This status allowed the effective free movement of Iranian oil disguised as Iraqi oil, and extended Tehran’s influence over Baghdad through its political, economic, and military proxies. By extension, it did the same for Moscow and Beijing, which used this as a springboard to further project their influence across the Iran-dominated Shia Crescent of Power.

This powerbase in Iran and Iraq had also been central to Russia’s longstanding plan to build a ‘land bridge’ to the Mediterranean Sea coast of another of its key global assets at the time — Syria. This would enable Moscow to exponentially increase weapons delivery into southern Lebanon and the Golan Heights area of Syria to be used in attacks on Israel. The core aim of this policy was to provoke a conflict in the Middle East that would draw in the U.S. and its allies into an unwinnable war, and was seen as a natural extension of the Israel-Hamas War that had begun after the terrorist organisation’s murderous spree across Israel on 7 October 2023. Given its centrality to Moscow’s plans, then, Iran was at that point still confident that the Kremlin would meet its other promises in the 20-year deal, despite the shenanigans surrounding the energy side of the treaty as it related to the Caspian’s oil and gas riches. “Iran had long been asking  Russia for the means to defend itself better against any attacks, especially those that might come from Israel or the U.S. — in particular for the S-400 missile defence system and Sukhoi Su-34 and 35 fighter jets,” a very senior source working closely with Iran’s Petroleum Ministry exclusively told OilPrice.com. “But these requests have continually been subject to further conditionality by Russia, such as upgrading key airports and seaports that Moscow sees as especially useful for dual-use by its air force and navy, and which are also close to major oil and gas facilities.

The terms of the individual defence and energy deals were also made increasingly onerous for Iran by Russia as preconditions for the final delivery of Iran’s requests. According to this source — and confirmed to OilPrice.com at the time by a very senior source working closely with the Russian government — the price of all items traded between Russia and Iran, including military and energy hardware, had been formalised in the 20-year deal on terms that were not in Iran’s favour. For Iranian goods exported to Russia, Tehran would receive the cost of production plus 8 per cent. However, these export sales to Russia would not be transferred to Iran, but rather would be held as credit in the Central Bank of Russia (CBR). Moreover, Iran would receive a huge markdown on US dollar/Rouble or Euro/Rouble exchange rates used to calculate its credits in the CBR. Conversely, for Russian goods exported to Iran, Moscow would receive the payment in advance of delivery and at an exchange rate that benefited Russia. Moreover, the base price before any exchange rate calculations would be set at the highest price that Russia has received in the previous 180 days for whichever product it was selling to Iran. Moscow ensured itself the highest possible price by selling the relevant product to Belarus at a very large premium shortly beforehand, so establishing the required pricing benchmark. Payments for goods and services falling outside the direct finance route between the central banks of the two countries would be handled through interbank transfers between Iranian and Russian banks. Transactions involving renminbi would also be routed through China’s Cross-Border Interbank Payment System, Beijing’s alternative to the globally-dominant Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunications system.

The additional problem for Iran now is that Russia is increasingly unable to provide even this limited assistance to it as its own troubles mount. Although U.S. President Donald Trump’s stance on Russia’s ’10-Day Special Military Operation’ — at the time of writing, in its 1,530th day — has broadly favoured Putin and his ability to keep funding the conflict, things have turned very recently. The removal of pro-Putin Hungarian President Viktor Orbán in last month’s general election removed the obstacle that blocked €90 billion in European Union (E.U.) aid to Ukraine, with more to come as and when needed. This comes at a time when, according to military sources, Russia is only able to replace 70 per cent of the soldiers it is losing on the battlefield — an unsustainable loss, which brings with it the deeply politically unsettling prospect of having to widen conscription out to the big cities, including Moscow and St. Petersburg. Moreover, Ukraine is now relentlessly hitting key oil and gas infrastructure targets deep in Russia, reducing its ability to monetise these exports to fund its Ukraine campaign. Crude oil export data suggested the rise in prices, plus the easing of U.S. sanctions on countries buying Russian oil, boosted Russian revenues to 2.3 times their December-February levels in the third week of the Iran war. But by the fourth week, Ukrainian drone strikes on energy-producing infrastructure reduced Russia’s earnings by US$1 billion, eradicating around two-thirds of the previous week’s gains. And destroying Russia’s energy infrastructure using Ukraine-manufactured long-range drones — without any U.S. assistance and using E.U. funding — is now a priority target.

As it stands, Iran has once again bet on a partner that takes far more than it ever gives. And as Russia’s own position deteriorates, even the illusion of reciprocity is evaporating. Tehran may soon discover that Moscow’s promises were always worth less than the paper they were written on. With Russia now struggling to sustain its own war effort, the chances of it honouring its commitments to Iran are shrinking by the day. And when the Kremlin finally admits it has nothing left to offer, Tehran will be left with no air defences, no aircraft, no navy, and no leverage — only the bill for a partnership that never paid out.

By Simon Watkins for Oilprice.com

Long after the Iran war is just a bookmark in the history books, one distinct consequence will persist: much of the world, at least the part that does not fall under the Chinese sphere of influence, will do everything it can to avoid the Strait of Hormuz and failing that, have a Plan B. Just like when the Biden admin weaponized the US Dollar in 2022 by booting Russia from SWIFT after the Ukraine war, and in the process started the biggest gold and bitcoin rally in history as the rest of the world parked its savings in non-USD assets, so the world’s most important oil choke point will never again be viewed again in the same way after Iran launched dozens of rockets at the ships transiting it. 

This shift in perception is what James Thorne, chief market strategist of WellingtonAltus, called “Iran’s Historic Mistake“; he explains it as follows: 

By weaponizing the Strait of Hormuz, Iran committed a strategic blunder of historic proportions. Tehran meant to punish America. Instead, it exposed every power built on imported energy, vulnerable sea lanes, and the delusion that globalization repealed geography. China is exposed. Europe is exposed. Britain is exposed. Iran has created a world where hard resource power decides outcomes.

And the punchline:

Iran’s mistake is that once Hormuz becomes structurally unreliable, the world builds around it. That means bypass corridors, revived pipeline politics, and urgent planning for routes linking Aqaba to Mediterranean outlets near Gaza and the long-stalled Basra-to-Aqaba pipeline. The old energy order is cracking. The UAE’s OPEC exit signals cartel discipline giving way to national advantage under pressure.

The full note can be found here, and we didn’t have long to wait to see the world it predicted begin to emerge. 

Earlier today, Nikkei Asia reported that Japan agreed to buy an additional 20 million barrels of crude oil from the United Arab Emirates as Tokyo continues pursuing alternative supply channels amid the effective blockade of the Strait of Hormuz. Japan used 2.36 million barrels of crude oil per day in 2025, the economy ministry reports. Based on this average, the additional 20 million barrels from the UAE could cover eight to nine days’ worth of demand, so much more is coming. 

The deal was finalized Tuesday after Ryosei Akazawa, Japan’s minister of economy, trade and industry, met with the Emirati industry minister in Abu Dhabi. Akazawa told reporters after the meeting that he had requested increased oil supplies for Japan. 

Roughly 40% of Japan’s crude oil imports comes from the UAE. The Middle Eastern country, which left the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries on Friday, intends to gradually increase oil production at its own discretion, which could lead to more cooperation with Japan.

Japan will pick up the Emirati oil at the port of Fujairah on the UAE’s eastern coast, which lies on the Gulf of Oman, allowing for crude exports without going through the Strait of Hormuz. 

The war in the Middle East — a region on which Japan has relied for more than 90% of its oil supply — has spurred Tokyo to approach other oil producers. It reached a deal last month to procure 1 million barrels of crude from Mexico. 

Recently Japan’s government said that around 60% of the oil Japan needs this month can be sourced through channels that do not involve shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, with releases from domestic stockpiles covering the remaining 40%.

Expect many more such deals from other Asian countries as passage through Hormuz will be one big question mark for years to come, absent a pro-Western regime taking control in Iran. 

Realizing the coming demand flood for its Fujairah-laden oil, and in anticipation of its post-OPEC renaissance, on May 3rd, UAE state energy company Abu Dhabi National Oil Company (ADNOC) Group, announced plans to award AED200bn (US$55bn) in upstream and downstream project contracts between 2026-28, at the ‘Make it with ADNOC’ forum in Abu Dhabi.

Omar Al Nuaimi, ADNOC’s Acting Group Chief, stated that ADNOC is moving into a new phase of accelerated, world-scale delivery to meet rising global energy demand. ”ADNOC is proud to continue reinforcing our role as a catalyst of the UAE’s industrial growth and an enabler of the Make it in the Emirates initiative,” he told the Emirates News Agency (WAM) on the sidelines of ‘Make it With ADNOC’ Forum, held ahead of the Make it in the Emirates 2026.

”As part of this effort, we announced today at the ‘Make it with ADNOC’ Forum, our plan to award AED200 billion in projects over the next two years as part of our CAPEX approved by the Board in November,” he said, explaining that the planned project awards span ADNOC’s upstream and downstream operations and usher in a new phase of project delivery that will supercharge UAE’s manufacturing capacity, strengthen industrial resilience, deepen the impact of the company’s In-Country Value program and advance the ‘Make it in the Emirates’ initiative.

In a note from Goldman (available here to pro subs), the bank writes that management characterized the announcement as marking the execution phase of its strategy, focused on scale, pace, and delivery to meet rising global energy demand while reinforcing the UAE’s industrial base. The forum convened >400 participants, linking EPC contractors with qualified UAE-based manufacturers under the in-country value program. The award pipeline spans the entire upstream-to-downstream value chain, focusing on:

• Capacity expansion: Scaling of crude oil and gas production capacity alongside deeper downstream integration
• In-Country Value (ICV): Channelling spend through the Local+ program to prioritize UAE-manufactured inputs.
• Supply chain resilience: Localizing critical equipment sourcing to mitigate global disruption and cost inflation risk.

According to Goldman, this announcement represents the first tranche of its previously announced $150BN capex program for 2030. The bank views the announcement as positive for key enablers such as ADNOC Drilling and ADNOC L&S, as they stand to be the primary beneficiaries of the upstream and downstream award pipeline. Furthermore, the signaled US$55bn commitment over 2026-28 serves as a strong signal of ADNOC Group’s expansion roadmap. Goldman sees upside risk to consensus numbers for the key enabler subsidiaries given the potential for accelerated execution timelines and higher-than-guided growth targets as ADNOC ramps up capacity across the value chain. 

More in the Goldman note available to pro subs.

Via Middle East Eye

Dubai is facing an existential crisis with the US and Israeli war on Iran forcing tourism numbers to fall sharply, with widespread hotel closures and job losses decimating the global tourism hotspots’ hospitality sector.

On Monday, Dubai Airports reported that first-quarter passenger traffic was down by at least 2.5 million from the same period in 2025, with March seeing a 66 percent drop in passenger numbers as travelers chose to steer clear of the Gulf. 

The company did not specify forecasts for this year but on Saturday, in a bid to kickstart tourism, the UAE announced that all air travel restrictions that were put in place after Iran launched retaliatory strikes on all six Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries that house or cooperate closely with US forces had been lifted. 

In a post on their official X account, the Civil Aviation Authority wrote: “Our decision came following a comprehensive assessment of operational and security conditions, in coordination with the relevant authorities”. The statement was clearly meant to relay confidence to international travelers, especially after several European airlines announced that they would be suspending flights to the Middle East. 

Workers and business owners in Dubai, who spoke to the Middle East Eye on condition of anonymity due GCC-wide restrictions on public statements about the effects of Tehran’s attacks, say it will still take some time to see if the announcement will restore confidence among travelers and investors.

Charity, a Kenyan hotel worker said the mid-priced hotel she works at was definitely affected by the 1.4 million people who travelled through the UAE over the first two weeks of March. During the Muslim month of Ramadan, when Iranian missile and drone attacks were at their worst, the hotel, part of a US-based chain, was full of stranded passengers who would meet with Emirates Airlines representatives in the lobby. 

During the month, the hotel’s pool was closed to guests and by the final days, guests staying in the higher floors of the 20-floor building were moved to the lower floors as a precautionary measure. After that, though, she said “things really slowed down for a few weeks”.

She said she hoped the announcement would provide some assurance to travelers. “We’ll see over the next week if people really start to come back,” she said while helping a long-time American traveler. “We need your people [foreign tourists] to come back,” she added.

So far, even longtime passengers say there has been a noticeable shift in the mood at Dubai International, which has been the world’s busiest airport for international passenger traffic for 12 consecutive years.

Samina, a South Asian NGO worker who travels between South Asia, the Gulf and North America, said the change was particularly noticeable in her most recent trips over the two months.

“Coming in, it’s empty,” she said of Terminal 3, home of Emirates Airlines. “Terminal 1 and 2 are ghost towns,” she said of the buildings that are home to other international carriers and FlyDubai, the UAE’s budget airline.

She said international airlines suspending flights to the region have definitely taken a toll on traffic, “Every time you get in, it’s all the same transit passengers.”

According to Dubai Airports, only 51 out of 90 airlines have resumed their operations at the airport, with European and US airlines facing difficulties securing insurance cover due to government travel advisories

‘Ethos of Dubai was shaken’

For its part, Dubai is working hard to support and reassure its residents. Travelling around the city, there is an abundance of UAE flags outside homes and businesses and on digital signs and billboards along the highways.

At the City Walk shopping center there are massive electronic signs thanking UAE residents in Arabic and English. Pictures of UAE President Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan are emblazoned along major roads with the statement: May our nation remain in God’s protection”. Other signs show Emirati families saluting the flag with the same words.

However, longtime residents and business owners say the impact of the intercepted missiles and drones was felt almost immediate.

Tatiana, a Russian national who runs a logistics company for businesses looking to setup shop in the Gulf, and she said even she was shocked at how quickly the mood shifted for existing and prospective businesses. “Within the first two weeks people [said] it’s no longer worth [living here]. They weren’t scared per se, they just felt like it’s no longer worth it”. 

“Businesses were suddenly liquidating their assets.” She said her family was now looking at options in Europe to gradually shift to.

Antoine, an editor who helps train amateur writers said one of his clients who works at an advertising agency was left with the burden of those liquidations. “She was in charge of finding 1,000 workers in the UAE to let go of,” he said. Antoine was particularly struck by the fact that even an advertising firm would be so immediately impacted.

“You’d think advertising would be a war-proof industry,” he said. Tatiana said her work has been particularly affected by the attacks.  “Our whole business is predicated on assuring people that the UAE is a safe, convenient place to do business,” she said.

Her statement is almost identical to what Arjun, one of the 3.5 to 4.3 million Indian residents of the UAE, said outside a late evening screening of the Michael Jackson biopic. Arjun said he was happy to see the screening at near capacity, hoping it was a sign of a gradual return to normal. “The entire ethos of Dubai as this place free from conflict was shaken,” he said.