Authored by Thomas Brooke via REMIX,

A total of 501 Afghan nationals are currently suing the German government after previously granted commitments to admit them into the country were withdrawn.

The cases are directed against Germany’s Federal Office for Migration and Refugees (BAMF), which revoked earlier pledges by the previous federal government to allow the individuals to resettle in Germany. The total number of legal cases was revealed following a parliamentary inquiry by the Left Party.

Despite the growing number of legal challenges, the Federal Ministry of the Interior has stated that a change in policy is “not intended,” Welt reported.

Most of the plaintiffs are currently in Pakistan, where authorities have called on Afghan nationals without long-term status to leave the country immediately. Many of those affected had previously received assurances of admission under resettlement programs introduced following the Taliban’s return to power in August 2021.

The legal action is being backed by left-wing NGOs as well as politicians from The Left. Clara Bünger, the party’s asylum spokesperson, described it as “shameful” that Afghans must sue to enforce what she said were firm pledges made by Berlin, and demanded that all original commitments be implemented without delay.

Their situation has deteriorated significantly in recent months. In July 2025, Pakistan began detaining Afghan nationals who had been earmarked for relocation to Germany but remained stuck in Islamabad after German authorities failed to complete their cases within the agreed timeframes. Around 2,500 Afghans were left in legal limbo as German background checks and visa procedures dragged on far beyond the three-month validity of Pakistani visas — often taking up to eight months.

A total of 501 Afghan nationals are currently suing the German government after previously granted commitments to admit them into the country were withdrawn.

The cases are directed against Germany’s Federal Office for Migration and Refugees (BAMF), which revoked earlier pledges by the previous federal government to allow the individuals to resettle in Germany. The total number of legal cases was revealed following a parliamentary inquiry by the Left Party.

Despite the growing number of legal challenges, the Federal Ministry of the Interior has stated that a change in policy is “not intended,” Welt reported.

Most of the plaintiffs are currently in Pakistan, where authorities have called on Afghan nationals without long-term status to leave the country immediately. Many of those affected had previously received assurances of admission under resettlement programs introduced following the Taliban’s return to power in August 2021.

The legal action is being backed by left-wing NGOs as well as politicians from The Left. Clara Bünger, the party’s asylum spokesperson, described it as “shameful” that Afghans must sue to enforce what she said were firm pledges made by Berlin, and demanded that all original commitments be implemented without delay.

Their situation has deteriorated significantly in recent months. In July 2025, Pakistan began detaining Afghan nationals who had been earmarked for relocation to Germany but remained stuck in Islamabad after German authorities failed to complete their cases within the agreed timeframes. Around 2,500 Afghans were left in legal limbo as German background checks and visa procedures dragged on far beyond the three-month validity of Pakistani visas — often taking up to eight months.

Islamabad had repeatedly warned Berlin that it could no longer tolerate the presence of thousands of Afghans with expired documents awaiting onward travel. With no resolution forthcoming, Pakistani authorities began arresting those whose status had lapsed and initiated deportation proceedings.

Alternative for Germany (AfD) co-leader Alice Weidel praised Islamabad last year for doing what the German government wouldn’t. “Pakistan is deporting Afghans to their homeland, whom the conservative coalition government wanted to bring to Germany, thus thwarting these plans. A good thing! The German government must finally end the voluntary admission of Afghans,” she said.

The vetting procedures had already been exposed as deeply flawed. Last year, Bild reported that only one in eight Afghans who entered Germany through special protection programs had been fully vetted by security authorities beforehand. More than 31,000 Afghans, including family members, were said to have arrived without complete background checks.

Berlin has insisted that those flown in were primarily former local staff who had supported the German military during its deployment in Afghanistan. However, reports indicated that only a small proportion of passengers on recent charter flights were former employees of the Bundeswehr or their close relatives.

Security concerns were also raised by the German Police Union, which repeatedly called for Afghan relocation flights from Pakistan to be suspended, citing identity verification problems and potential risks. The union last year urged then-Chancellor Olaf Scholz to halt the program altogether.

In January of this year, it emerged that the federal government had attempted to reduce the backlog by offering financial compensation to Afghans willing to relinquish their resettlement pledges and drop litigation proceedings. According to a report cited by Die Zeit, around 700 individuals were contacted and offered several thousand euros to permanently withdraw from the admission schemes. By the end of the year, only 167 had accepted, while 357 rejected the proposal outright, leaving the majority still awaiting a decision on their future.

In a move that’s got America’s energy bureaucrats finally moving at something approaching market speed, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has handed TerraPower – the Bill Gates-backed outfit pushing the Natrium advanced reactor – the first commercial nuclear construction permit issued in nearly a decade.

After years of regulatory theater and the usual alphabet-soup delays, the NRC unanimously approved the permit on March 4, 2026, for the Kemmerer Power Station Unit 1 in southwestern Wyoming. Construction on the actual reactor can now commence, with TerraPower signaling work will kick off “in the coming weeks.”

When actual construction of the reactor breaks ground, the US will finally appear on this chart of countries which currently have nuclear reactors under construction, where China is at 38, Russia and India at 6… and the US is below Iran and Pakistan with 0.

For once, this isn’t just another ribbon-cutting for legacy light-water tech that’s been choking on paperwork since the Carter administration. The Natrium is a sodium-cooled fast reactor — pool-type design, paired with a molten-salt energy storage system that lets it ramp output like a gas peaker plant while running baseload clean. The reactor uses High-Assay Low-Enriched Uranium (HALEU) fuel, which as we explained in our nuclear primer for investors, is enriched to around 15-20% U-235, and allows for smaller, more efficient reactor cores. Reactor capacity clocks in at 345 MWe, with the storage boost potentially pushing it higher for grid flexibility.

It’s the kind of innovation that actually addresses intermittency complaints from the wind-and-solar crowd without pretending batteries the size of small cities are economically sane.

In a shocking reversal to its standard operating procedure (and we use the term loosely, since US nuclear regulators haven’t really done anything in decades), the NRC’s staff reviewed the application (filed back in March 2024) in just 18 months — a blistering pace compared to the initial 27-month estimate. Translation: even the regulators are now feeling the heat from exploding AI/data-center demand and the obvious reality that coal retirements + renewables alone won’t keep the lights on.

This marks the first approval for a non-light-water commercial reactor in over 40 years. Historic? You bet. Overdue? Even more so.

TerraPower CEO Chris Levesque didn’t mince words: “Today is a historic day for the United States’ nuclear industry.” The company has already been moving dirt on non-nuclear portions since 2024 (thanks to earlier exemptions and state permits from Wyoming’s Industrial Siting Council in 2025), including the “energy island” components. Full commercial operation targets 2030, with costs estimated up to $4 billion for this demo plant — backed by DOE’s Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program cost-share (up to $2 billion federal, matched by TerraPower and partners).

And the momentum isn’t stopping at one unit. TerraPower inked a massive deal with Meta earlier this year for up to eight Natrium plants, potentially delivering gigawatts of firm, carbon-free power to feed the AI beast. Gates, ever the optimist on nuclear, has long positioned this as the scalable path forward — and with tech giants scrambling for reliable baseload to avoid blackouts or diesel generators at data centers, the economics are starting to look less speculative.

Critics will no doubt whine about sodium’s reactivity (fire risks, anyone?), the first-of-a-kind premiums, or whatever regulatory bogeyman they can dredge up. But let’s be real: the old paradigm delivered Vogtle-style overruns and decade-long builds. Advanced designs like Natrium promise modular construction, passive safety features, and actual cost/time discipline – exactly what the grid needs as electrification ramps and fossil plants retire. Small and mobile modular reactors like those built by Oklo and Nano Nuclear will be even more important for powering up the “behind the meter” data center revolution which at least check was short about 100 Gigawatts in the coming years . 

While the legacy nuclear lobby clings to 1970s tech and endless EIS reruns, TerraPower is proving that American innovation – backed by private capital and a (finally) cooperative regulator – can deliver. The Wyoming project isn’t just replacing a retiring coal plant; it’s a blueprint for weaning the grid off intermittent fantasies and toward dispatchable, high-density power that doesn’t bankrupt ratepayers.

Nuclear’s back, baby. And this time, it’s not waiting for permission slips from the 20th century. And as the atoms are about to start splitting in Kemmerer, the energy establishment is feeling the ground shake.

Authored by John Haughey via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The Pentagon had been choreographing a prospective massive attack on Iran since 1980, but it wasn’t until December 2025 that U.S. President Donald Trump, after meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Washington, told military planners to give him that devastating option in case the fundamentalist Shia regime refused to end its uranium enrichment program.

With that request, the countdown to Operation Epic Fury kicked off.

Joint Chiefs of Staff Chair Gen. Dan Caine told reporters during a March 2 press conference that with the president’s December request, the Pentagon began “setting the force and setting the theater” and shifted forces into place over the previous 30 days to “provide the president with credible options should action be required.”

After U.S. negotiators, led by special envoy Steve Witkoff and Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, left Geneva on Feb. 26 without concessions from Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, the die was cast.

The next day, the president called the Pentagon from Air Force One as it was en route to Corpus Christi, Texas, where he was scheduled to campaign for Republican primary candidates.

Caine recalled the exact moment he got the call: “H hour,” a military term for the time at which an operation begins, was 3:38 p.m. EST on Friday, Feb. 27, when the Pentagon “received the final go order from President Trump.”

“The president directed, and I quote: ‘Operation Epic Fury is approved. No aborts. Good luck,’” Caine said.

With that one call, he said, “across the globe, [U.S. military] operation centers came alive,” and Adm. Brad Cooper, Central Command commander at MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa, Florida, assumed operational command in the theater.

When Trump issued the “go order” at 3:38 p.m. Feb. 27, it was just after midnight Feb. 28 in Tehran. In the nearly 10 hours between H hour and the actual launch of the attack, Caine said, “in the region, every element of the joint force made their final preparations.”

“Air defense batteries readied themselves, checking their systems to respond to Iranian attacks,” he said. “Pilots and crews rehearsed their strike packages for the final time. Air crews began loading their final weapons, and two carrier strike groups began to move towards their launching point.”

“As dawn crept up, across the Central Command [area of operations], skies surged to life,” Caine said.

“More than 100 aircraft launched from land and sea—fighters, tankers, airborne early warning, electronic attack, bombers from the states, and unmanned platforms—forming a single synchronized wave.”

That wave arrived over Iran at 1:15 a.m. EST, 9:45 a.m. in Tehran.

That timeline was accelerated by “a trigger event conducted by the Israeli Defense Forces, enabled by the U.S. intelligence community” from the standard night attack to a mid-morning opening salvo that killed Iranian leader Ali Khamenei and up to 48 of the nation’s military leaders at a Tehran compound.

That was among more than 1,000 targets struck in the first 24 hours of the aerial, missile, and drone assault.

“The full strength of America’s armed forces came together in a unified purpose against a capable and determined adversary,” Caine said.

“This deployment included thousands of service members from all branches, hundreds of advanced fourth- and fifth-generation fighters, dozens of refueling tankers, the Lincoln and Ford carrier strike groups and their embarked air wings, sustained flow of munitions, fuel supplies … all supported with command and control, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance network. And the flow of forces continues today.”

The nation’s highest-ranking military officer laid out the order of battle and what forces, as of March 2, were engaged in Operation Epic Fury, a rapid assembly of forces that “demonstrated the joint forces ability to adapt and project power at the time and place of [the United States’] choosing” that included “several combat firsts” to be made public “at some point in the future.”

Before the first missile struck, Caine said, “the first movers” were Space Force, Army, and Air Force electronics and cyber warfare technicians “layering non-kinetic effects, disrupting and degrading and blinding Iran’s ability to see, communicate, and respond.”

With Iranian communications disrupted and its air defenses “without the ability to see, coordinate, or respond effectively,” U.S. and Israeli air forces, with “swift, precise, and overwhelming strikes,” established local air superiority immediately, he said, setting the stage for a campaign the Pentagon maintains it can sustain, and expand if needed, for weeks.

Combat Firsts

With Iranian air defenses hacked or blinded before the opening salvo, the assault began with waves of Tomahawk cruise missiles—long-range precision weapons capable of striking targets hundreds of miles inland—launched by the aircraft carriers USS Abraham Lincoln in the Arabian Sea and USS Gerald R. Ford in the eastern Mediterranean Sea and their battlegroup destroyers.

The USS Gerald R. Ford, which had been deployed to the region in June 2025 during the 12-Day War that badly damaged, but did not destroy, Iran’s uranium enrichment program and was then dispatched to the southern Caribbean to lead Operation Southern Spear off Venezuela, was ordered back to the Sixth Fleet in January and is now in its eighth month of sustained operations.

It is to be relieved eventually by the USS George H.W. Bush, a Nimitz-class carrier undergoing post-overhaul sea trials.

With missiles outbound, hundreds of Air Force F-15s, F-16s, and stealth F-22 Raptors merged with carrier-launched F/A-18 Hornets, stealth F-35s, and EA-18G electronic warfare jets in the massive aerial attack against Iranian air defenses and missile-launch sites.

The fighters were later joined by Air Force stealth B-2 Spirit bombers that flew 17 hours from Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri, which had struck suspected nuclear complexes with 30,000-pound “penetrator” munitions in June 2025.

In the opening phases of the Feb. 28 assault, they targeted ballistic missile sites with 2,000-pound precision-guided bombs, confirming that the focus was on degrading Iran’s air defenses and communications.

Ground-based Army precision strike missiles from the M142 high-mobility artillery rocket system mounted on “shoot and scoot” mobile launchers added to the fray, lobbing short-range ballistics into Iran from bases in the Gulf states, the first time the short-range ballistic missile system was used in combat.

The Pentagon has acknowledged that Operation Epic Fury is also the debut of a new low-cost ‌uncrewed combat attack system (LUCAS) drone—a one-way “suicide” drone reverse-engineered to mimic Iran’s Shahed 136 drone, which it has exported en masse to Russia for use in Ukraine.

Among the forces participating in the attack are Air Force MQ-9 Reaper drones carrying Hellfire missiles and guided bombs, twin-engine A-10 attack aircraft directed by E-3 Sentry and E-2 Hawkeye airborne surveillance and EA-11A BACN “Wi-Fi in the sky” reconnaissance jets, and KC-135 and KC-46 aerial refueling tankers.

Under attack from Iranian and Shia militias, there are about 2,400 U.S. soldiers in Syria and Iraq, including in Erbil, Iraq.

About 2,000 are from the Iowa National Guard, who are to be relieved by a unit from the 10th Mountain Division this spring.

At least 250 guardsmen left Iraq in mid-February, and on Feb. 27—before the attack was launched—the Iowa National Guard announced that 650 more were headed home.

It is uncertain what their status is now.

The U.S. base in Erbil is among installations across the region under sporadic Iranian and militia attacks.

Trump and War Secretary Pete Hegseth have not ruled out dispatching “boots on the ground,” although there is no indication that Army and Marine infantry forces have been ordered to deploy.

Read the rest here…

Historically, the party in power almost always loses seats in midterm elections. There are only two exceptions to this rule. In 1934, under Franklin D. Roosevelt, and then in 2002, under George W. Bush. Are there signs that 2026 could be another precedent-shattering year? A new Harvard CAPS/Harris Poll survey conducted late last month suggests it could be. 

The poll has the generic congressional ballot tied at 50-50. Not only are these numbers on their face bad for the Democratic Party, but they also represent a significant shift from the Harvard CAPS/Harris January poll, when Republicans trailed Democrats by eight points.

The shift in the horse race is striking on its own. Perhaps the real question is why the GOP appears to have a fighting chance this year of defying precedent.

Pollsters handed respondents sample messages from both parties and asked whether they found them believable. 54% called the Republican pitch credible: “Republicans say that they are returning responsibility to government by arresting criminals, closing the borders, keeping taxes low, and lowering energy costs. We can’t go back to the Democrats, who were allowing our cities and way of life to deteriorate and prices on energy and food to soar while fraud took billions and billions of dollars of their giveaway programs.” 

Only 48% said the same of the Democratic counter, which promised free housing, free transportation, healthcare for all, free student loan relief, and a shakedown of billionaires to pay for it. Among likely midterm voters, the GOP message drives a 46-37 advantage in vote intent. The Democratic freebie platform produces a net one-point edge for Democrats among the same group — a rounding error.

Does that mean things can’t change? Not all at. In fact, 61% of respondents said they’d be receptive to the message that “we need to stop Donald Trump. He is a runaway dictator, and we need a check on his power by returning the Congress to the Democrats. His tariffs are increasing prices, and he is off on foreign adventures.” That certainly implies that Democrat messaging can work; however, after both parties’ full messaging was laid out to poll respondents, Republicans moved to a 51-49 lead on the ballot, a two-point GOP shift.

Trump’s approval also gives the GOP signs of hope. His net approval improved from -6 points in January to -3 in February. Among likely midterm voters, he’s net positive at 50-47. The trajectory matters as much as the snapshot, and it’s up.

Beneath the horse race, the structural terrain looks even less hospitable for Democrats. 

On economic management, voters trust the Trump administration over congressional Democrats 53-47. On whether today’s economy reflects Biden-era or Trump-era policy, 59% say Trump, yet 52% say things are better now than under Biden. Republicans are credited and rewarded for that, a double-win for the GOP. While both parties’ approval ratings are underwater, the GOP edges out the Democratic Party by three points. 

The policy map reinforces the GOP’s positioning for the midterms. Lowering prescription drug prices commands a staggering 80% support. Deporting illegal immigrants who have committed crimes earns 75%. A full-scale crackdown on federal fraud comes in at 71%. Capping credit-card interest rates at 10% pulls 69%, and strengthening border security to close the border draws 67%. The same pattern showed up with President Trump’s State of the Union proposals. Banning members of Congress from trading individual stocks garnered 72% support, while federal retirement matching accounts attracted 70%.

On the issue of election integrity, it’s all great numbers for the GOP. Support for national voter ID gets 81% support. Removing non-citizens from voter rolls comes in at 80%. Requiring proof of citizenship to vote earns 75%. The SAVE America Act, which packages those provisions together, wins 71% overall support, including backing from half of Democrats and 69% of independents. When voters are asked to choose what matters more, 54% say preventing fraud outweighs maximizing access. Democrats have bet heavily that voter-integrity legislation is a political loser. This poll says otherwise.

The ideological fundamentals aren’t moving in the left’s direction either. Capitalism beats socialism 59-41 as voters’ preferred economic system, with 76% saying America should run mostly as a free-enterprise country. 91% say people should own their own homes and private property. 84% want grocery stores to be private, not state-run. This is not good news for the party of Bernie Sanders, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and Zohran Mamdani.

None of this means November is a lock for the GOP. Eight months is a lifetime in American politics. But the picture that emerges from this data is of a Republican Party whose core arguments are resonating with a majority of the public, giving them a real chance to defy precedent.

Keep in mind that the poll was taken before Iran… so the next one should be interesting. 

Authored by Zineb Riboua via Beyond the Ideological,

In 2015, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) was sold to the American public and to the world as the definitive answer to Iran’s nuclear threat. The agreement placed extensive restrictions on uranium enrichment, centrifuge capacity, and stockpile levels, but said almost nothing about the one thing that would actually deliver a nuclear warhead to its target: ballistic missiles. Nothing about cruise missiles either. No limits on the development, testing, production, or deployment of the very weapons systems that transform a nuclear device from a dangerous secret in a bunker into a weapon that can destroy a city. A bomb is only as threatening as your ability to deliver it, and the JCPOA left Iran’s ability to deliver it completely unconstrained.

For Iran, this distinction matters more than it does for almost any other country on earth.

Decades of international sanctions have left Tehran with one of the weakest air forces in the region, an aging fleet incapable of penetrating the air defenses of Israel or any major Gulf state. Iran cannot deliver a nuclear weapon by aircraft. It cannot do so by sea with any reliability. The ballistic missile is the only component that gives the rest of the nuclear program strategic value.

What makes this failure even more consequential is who stepped in to exploit it.

Over the past two years, China has emerged as the principal external supplier of Iran’s ballistic missile program, providing everything from chemical precursors for solid rocket fuel to satellite guidance through its BeiDou-3 navigation network, which replaced American GPS across Iran’s entire military architecture. The U.S. Treasury Department sanctioned several Chinese entities for supplying the IRGC with chemicals used in missile fuel production.

Intelligence revealed Iranian cargo ships unloading shipments of sodium perchlorate at Bandar Abbas, a substance that bypasses existing monitoring mechanisms, in quantities sufficient to produce propellant for approximately 800 new missiles in a single delivery.

Beijing had also been negotiating the sale of CM-302 supersonic anti-ship missiles to Tehran, a system designed to sink aircraft carriers. In December 2025, American special forces raided a merchant vessel in the Indian Ocean carrying Chinese military cargo bound for the Revolutionary Guards.

By the time Operation Epic Fury launched, Iran possessed the largest ballistic missile arsenal in the Middle East, an estimated 2,000 missiles of varying ranges dispersed across hardened underground facilities, rebuilt and resupplied in large part by Chinese industrial networks.

The Deferral

But let’s take a step back and look at what happened:

The Obama administration’s decision to exclude missiles from the 2015 JCPOA agreement represented a calculated concession, and more fundamentally, an act of deliberate deferral. In fact, both China and Russia categorically refused to include missile restrictions in the multilateral negotiations, and Tehran declared its indigenous missile development a non-negotiable sovereign right.

Naturally, the Obama team, determined to secure a landmark diplomatic achievement before leaving office, separated the nuclear file from the missile file entirely, treating them as two distinct problems when they formed two halves of the same threat.

Obama especially framed the deal in aspirational terms, saying it provided “an opportunity to move in a new direction,” but the direction left the missile program entirely unaddressed. In the language of UN Security Council Resolution 2231, the provisions on missiles merely “called upon” Iran not to conduct certain activities, far weaker than the binding prohibition in the prior Resolution 1929, which had explicitly prohibited Iran from pursuing ballistic missile technology capable of delivering nuclear warheads.

The administration even watered down the enforcement language of that earlier resolution to get the deal through, reasoning that missiles could be addressed later. That word, “later,” defined the entire approach. Iran tested ballistic missiles within weeks of the JCPOA entering into force, and no mechanism existed to stop it.

Free from constraint, Iran used the decade that followed to transform its missile program from a crude deterrent into a sophisticated, mass-produced strategic arsenal. It perfected guidance systems, extended ranges to cover all of the Middle East and parts of Europe, transitioned from liquid to solid-fuel propulsion, and constructed hardened underground launch facilities designed to withstand aerial bombardment. The interesting part? None of this violated a single provision of the deal.

And the missiles served a purpose beyond delivery: Iran aimed to amass such an overwhelming conventional arsenal that military action against its nuclear program would become prohibitively costly. Secretary of State Marco Rubio put today the math in stark terms: “They can build 100 ballistic missiles a month. We build 6 or 7 interceptors a month.” Each interceptor costs between $1 million and $15 million, while each Iranian missile costs between $200,000 and $500,000.

But the missiles did not stop at Israel’s borders. In the opening hours of Operation Epic Fury, Iranian retaliatory strikes slammed into civilian areas across Abu Dhabi, Dubai, and Manama; debris from intercepted projectiles rained near Kuwait International Airport. In the UAE alone, three people were killed and at least 58 wounded. Iran, in this sense, was (and still is) holding Arab capitals hostage, using its missile arsenal as a coercive instrument to punish the Gulf states for daring to deepen their alignment with Washington and/or Jerusalem.

The cruelest irony is that Riyadh and Abu Dhabi saw this coming. Neither was consulted as a stakeholder during the JCPOA negotiations, and both warned — publicly and repeatedly — that any deal leaving Iran’s missile program untouched would one day endanger their populations. They were dismissed as alarmist. Iranian warheads landing on Gulf Arab soil have now settled the argument.

The Reversal

Rubio’s articulation of the objectives behind Epic Fury collapsed a distinction that three decades of American diplomacy had fought to preserve. “The objectives of this operation are to destroy their ballistic missile capability and make sure they can’t rebuild, and make sure that they can’t hide behind that to have a nuclear program,” he said. One sentence fused what the JCPOA had deliberately kept apart, the nuclear file and the missile file, and redefined what an acceptable Iran looks like.

The urgency is real. Israeli defense planners had tracked how Chinese components, machine tools, and technical guidance were accelerating Iranian production lines, and their projections pointed toward catastrophe: 5,000 missiles by 2027, potentially 10,000 by the end of the decade. Every warhead carried a Chinese fingerprint, from solid-fuel propellant chemistry to the precision guidance systems that turned inaccurate rockets into weapons capable of striking downtown Abu Dhabi. Beijing was not merely trading with Tehran.

The Chinese government was industrializing Iran’s capacity to hold the Middle East at gunpoint. Whatever Beijing’s full calculus, the military consequences of that investment are legible on at least three levels.

• First, every interceptor the United States fires over the Middle East represents one fewer available for the Western Pacific. THAAD batteries, Patriot systems, and SM-3 carrying naval vessels all draw from the same overstretched production lines. By accelerating Iran’s missile output, China imposed a war of attrition on American munitions without deploying a single soldier.

• Second, Every Iranian salvo also forces the United States to reveal electronic warfare capabilities, radar signatures, and interceptor performance data in real combat conditions, giving Chinese military intelligence a live laboratory to study American defense systems without ever confronting them directly.

• Third, if the United States proved unable to shield its Arab partners from sustained bombardment, every ally watching from Tokyo to Manila to Taipei would draw the same conclusion: Washington’s promises have material limits.

The drain on American readiness had already begun.

During the twelve-day war in 2025, the United States burned through roughly 150 THAAD interceptors, munitions that take years to produce and that feed the same queue supporting Pacific deterrence.

Only a few dozen replacements followed. Iran was rebuilding faster than America could reload. Left unchecked, the math led to a devastating fork: accept Iranian nuclear breakout behind a missile shield too thick to penetrate, or fight a war in the Middle East with stockpiles earmarked for the Taiwan Strait. Beijing had engineered precisely this dilemma. Operation Epic Fury represented the decision to prevent that choice from ever arriving. By destroying the missiles, the United States turned years of Chinese strategic investment and billions in transferred technology to ash.

Subscribe to Beyond the Ideological 

In the most dramatic escalation yet involving shipping in the Persian Gulf, the United Kingdom Maritime Trade Operations (UKMTO), a British naval authority responsible for monitoring shipping safety in high-risk areas, said it received a report that around 1040pm UTC, a “large explosion” took place on a tanker 30 nautical miles south east off Mubarak Al Kebeer, on the coast of Kuwait. “There is oil in the water coming from a cargo tank”, which could have a disastrous environmental impact, especially if its reaches the desalinization plants that keep much of the Gulf population alive.

The tanker, which was at anchor in the Khor al-Zubair lightering zone – a critical area for loading Iraqi heavy fuel oil exports – began taking on water following the blast. Oil was seen leaking from a damaged cargo tank into the surrounding waters, prompting concerns over potential environmental impacts. Despite the severity, no fires were reported, and all crew members remained safe and accounted for. Kuwait’s interior ministry later clarified that the incident took place outside the country’s territorial waters, at least 60 kilometers from the port

BREAKING A tanker was hit by a “large explosion” in the waters off Kuwait, causing an oil spill, British maritime security agency UKMTO said Thursday pic.twitter.com/i8mLJVn9bs

— AFP News Agency (@AFP) March 5, 2026

The targeted area off Kuwait is particularly significant as it lies within Iraq’s primary oil export corridor, a zone previously considered outside the main conflict perimeter. Iraq, not directly involved in the US-Iran war, has already reduced oil production due to storage shortages and loading delays caused by the broader disruptions. No group or nation has claimed responsibility for the Kuwait incident, but analysts suggest it could be linked to Iranian proxies or other actors exploiting the chaos.

The report, which was sourced to the Master of a tanker at anchor, comes as the fifth day of the conflict draw to a close, but no near end is in sight after Israel and the US hit Iran in joint strikes on several key sites on Saturday, February 28. Iran has retaliated by striking sites across the Middle East, and hitting several ships in the gulf as part of its blockade of the Straits of Hormuz. 

UKMTO WARNING INCIDENT 014-026

Click here to view the full warning ⤵️ https://t.co/ygKSBOCLZi#MaritimeSecurity #MarSec pic.twitter.com/RPZXtz6RU7

— UKMTO Operations Centre (@UK_MTO) March 5, 2026

UKMTO said vessels are advised to transit with caution and report any suspicious activity to the maritime operation.

This incident is hardly isolated, and is part of a widening conflict in the Middle East. The Persian Gulf has become increasingly volatile since the outbreak of hostilities between the United States and Iran, with multiple attacks on commercial and military vessels reported in recent days. For instance, prior to the explosion, a US submarine sank an Iranian frigate near Sri Lanka, an Iranian corvette was set ablaze at Bandar Abbas, and Qatar’s LNG terminals suffered outages. These events have stranded hundreds of ships, including oil tankers, outside the Strait of Hormuz—a chokepoint for about 20% of global oil supplies.

Other recent maritime attacks in the region include a seafarer killed in an explosion off Oman on March 1 and a Russian-flagged LNG tanker sinking in the Mediterranean, blamed by Moscow on Ukrainian sea drones. These incidents underscore the expanding scope of the conflict, turning once-safe waters into high-risk zones for global trade.

The attack has immediate ramifications for energy markets. With Iraqi exports potentially hampered, oil prices could face upward pressure, exacerbating the disruptions already pricing in closures rather than mere interruptions. Shipping insurers and commodity traders are on high alert, as the Gulf’s transformation into a “hunting ground” without clear boundaries threatens further escalations.

Environmentally, the oil spill poses risks to marine life and coastal ecosystems in the Persian Gulf, a region already vulnerable to pollution from decades of oil activities. Cleanup efforts will likely be complicated by the ongoing security threats.

As investigations continue, the international community watches closely, with calls for enhanced maritime security to protect vital trade routes. This event serves as a stark reminder of how regional conflicts can ripple into global economic and environmental challenges.

California Governor Gavin Newsom has released a new memoir, “Young Man in a Hurry”, in which the Democrat lays out stories from his personal and political life.

From his sometimes turbulent upbringing to his 2004 act in favor of gay marriage, when he allowed over 4,000 same-sex couples to get married at San Francisco City Hall during his time as mayor long before such unions were legalized, the book details some of Newsom’s successes and failures, without giving a clear roadmap of what’s to come.

Newsom, who is termed out of office and cannot run again in November, has been open in interviews about the possibility of running for president of the United States in 2028, but has maintained the decision would be made “as a family” with his wife and four children.

As Statista’s Valentine Fourreau reports, according to data from prediction market platform Polymarket, Gavin Newsom is currently most likely to become the Democratic nominee for the 2028 presidential election with odds of over 25 percent as of February 23, 2026.

This places him far ahead of all other potential Democratic candidates, including Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who came second at just under 10 percent, and former VP and once presidential hopeful Kamala Harris in 3rd position.

Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro (4 percent) is in fourth position.

While Gavin Newsom so far appears as the clear favorite to represent the Democrats in the next election, Polymarket odds currently see him losing to VP J.D. Vance, with 17 percent against 22…

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said earlier that the U.S. is “accelerating, not decelerating” Operation Epic Fury, with U.S. and Israeli forces conducting at least 1,000 strikes over five days against high-value IRGC assets and leadership. As those strikes have significantly degraded the IRGC’s capabilities on land, at sea, and in the air, the next big question is whether Iran’s energy infrastructure will become the conflict’s next major focal point, especially as the Strait of Hormuz remains paralyzed and Beijing grows increasingly concerned about disruptions to its cheap Iranian crude imports.

Operation Epic Fury has targeted key IRGC leadership, military support networks, and financial infrastructure, severely degrading core pillars of the regime. The next phase to watch is whether the Trump administration and Israel will move against Iran’s critical oil and gas infrastructure, which remains both the regime’s economic lifeline and an important source of cheap crude for China.

What comes to mind first is Iran’s main crude export terminal in the Persian Gulf, called “Kharg Island.” Think of it as Iran’s oil jugular.

Reuters reports that about 90% of Iran’s crude is exported via Kharg Island, located off the country’s southern coast in the northern Persian Gulf, in Bushehr Province, about 34 miles northwest of the port of Bushehr.

Kharg Island is Iran’s jugular.

80-90% of Iran’s crude exports flow through this supertanker terminal in the Persian Gulf. No Kharg, no oil revenue. No oil revenue, no regime. Every war plan, every sanctions package, every naval deployment in the Gulf orbits this one fact. https://t.co/E0mVmlC9ea pic.twitter.com/mRuT3gTY1s

— John Ʌ Konrad V (@johnkonrad) February 28, 2026

The latest from Bloomberg reports that Iran continued loading crude onto tankers at Kharg on Monday, despite U.S. and Israeli strikes on IRGC targets countrywide. It remains unclear whether the loading terminal will still be operational through the end of the week, given that the Strait of Hormuz is paralyzed and that any shadow tanker carrying Iranian crude through the chokepoint could be targeted by U.S. and allied forces.

One observation is that the Trump administration and Israel may be deliberately preserving operations at the Kharg loading terminal. If military planners had intended to immediately sever the regime’s funding pipeline, the terminal likely would have been among the first targets of the operation. This suggests that allied forces may be keeping the facility intact for the country’s next leadership.

Kharg is by far the most strategically important economic target. Iran’s regime depends upon it. If we want to break their will, it obviously should be impacted. https://t.co/IBB1Zg8kFP

— David Asher (@dasher8090) June 14, 2025

“Kharg Island handles up to 90% of Iran’s oil exports. Is President Trump thinking about seizing it?” Eurasia Group’s Ian Bremmer asked on X.

kharg island handles up to 90% of iran’s oil exports.
is president trump thinking about seizing it?@gzeromediapic.twitter.com/wczuNBr3o3

— ian bremmer (@ianbremmer) March 4, 2026

Our view is that if the Trump administration intends to push forward with a new government, Kharg Island’s oil and gas infrastructure is unlikely to be destroyed. Notably, it has remained untouched in the first five days of the conflict. If it is destroyed, China would be furious.

Authored by Larry Sand via American Greatness,

Many students are chronically absent or have dropped out of school.

Nat Malkus, a senior fellow in education policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, oversees the Return to Learn Tracker, which monitors chronic absenteeism in U.S. schools. His latest report, released in early February, includes data from 39 states and Washington, D.C.

He states that after reaching a high of 29 percent in the 2021–22 school year, the chronic absenteeism rate—missing 10 percent or more of school days in an academic year—fell by 2.6 percentage points the following school year and by 2.2 percentage points the following school year. This progress was encouraging, but it stalled last school year, with rates falling by just over one percentage point on average. This leaves the average chronic absenteeism rate for most of the country at 23 percent, roughly 50 percent higher than the pre-pandemic baseline.

This chronic absence problem is especially egregious in our large urban areas. In Los Angeles, more than 32 percent of students were chronically absent during the 2023–24 school year. Thirty-four elementary schools have fewer than 200 students, and 29 use less than half of their buildings. Chicago is even worse, with a chronic absentee rate of 41 percent.

Malkus concludes that these patterns suggest that shifts in attitudes and behavior are largely driving the across-the-board increases in post-pandemic absenteeism. Six years into the pandemic, students and their parents are placing less value on attending school each day.

One realistic way to address chronic absenteeism—and save taxpayer dollars—would be to close ineffective schools. But government educrats and teacher union bosses refuse to allow that to happen. In fact, school closures have slowed over time.

An analysis by the IZA Institute of Labor Economics shows that in 2014–15, the closure rate—the share of schools nationwide that were open one year and closed the next—was 1.3 percent, but in 2023–24, the rate was just 0.8 percent.

Another way to alleviate the problem would be to reduce the number of teachers by eliminating the lowest performers, but that will not happen. Teacher union-mandated permanence clauses make it nearly impossible to fire an incompetent teacher. In California, a 2012 court case revealed that, on average, only 2.2 of California’s 275,000 teachers (0.0008 percent) were dismissed each year for unprofessional conduct or unsatisfactory performance.

Chronic absenteeism rates would also improve if students felt a sense of purpose in going to school. Currently, many kids lack interest in showing up. A 2024 report from Gallup and the Walton Family Foundation surveyed over 1,000 Gen Z students aged 12 to 18 and found that only 48 percent of those enrolled in middle or high school felt motivated to show up. Only half said they do something interesting in school every day. Similarly, a 2024 EdChoice survey indicated that 64 percent of teens said school is boring, and 30 percent view it as a waste of time.

In addition to the problem of chronically absent students, families are removing their children, especially if they are high achievers, from government-run schools in large numbers.

Joshua Goodman, an associate professor of education and economics at Boston University, authored a study that found that nationally, white and Asian parents are far more likely to withdraw their children from public schools than Hispanics and blacks.

“The question that worries me is whether this means that public schools have now cemented a reputation as not being the place where high-achieving students attend. If you’re a family that’s looking for a challenging curriculum, and you have a talented student, you’re no longer seeing public schools in quite that light,” Goodman said.

Perhaps the leader in the public school exodus is Chicago, whose numbers are particularly grim. Dwindling enrollment has left about 150 Windy City schools half-empty, while 47 operate at less than one-third capacity, leading to high costs and limited course offerings.

Worth noting is that Chicago spends about $18,700 per student. At small schools that have been losing students, per-pupil costs are double or triple that. At one 28-student school, the cost per student is $93,000. (For the sake of perspective, the Latin School of Chicago, among the city’s most expensive private schools, costs about $47,000 per year.)

Not surprisingly, as the number of students declines, school district insolvency is on the rise. Education finance experts say more districts are grappling with this problem, especially those that spent pandemic federal aid on recurring expenses or didn’t scale back their budgets in anticipation of the aid’s end.

As a result, districts are facing increased involvement from their counties and states, ranging from financial monitoring to takeovers. In rarer cases, districts may even declare bankruptcy or consider merging with other districts.

While public schools are bleeding students, school choice of all types continues to grow. Overall, there are now 75 private school choice programs in 34 states, serving more than 1.5 million students.

Notably, microschools—where classes traditionally have had fewer than 15 students of varying ages, and the schedule and curriculum are tailored to each class’s needs—are growing in popularity, currently educating about 2 percent of the U.S. student population—roughly 750,000 students. Most microschools are independently run by parents, but some are part of a formal network that provides paid, in-person teachers. Lessons take place in settings such as homes, libraries, and other community centers.

In sum, unionized government-run schools, which offer a free (for the user) product, are losing customers because they are failing to fulfill their mission. It’s not about a lack of funding, COVID-related issues, large class sizes, low teacher pay, or any of the myriad excuses made by those who champion public schools.

Absent the elimination of all government-run schools and the adoption of a system of total privatization, we should give every family in the U.S. a choice of where to send their kids for an education and let tax dollars follow the child.

Until we make major changes, Americans’ dissatisfaction with schools will continue to mount, and the exodus will proceed apace.

*   *   *

Larry Sand is a retired 28-year classroom teacher who served as president of the nonprofit California Teachers Empowerment Network from 2006 to 2025. He now focuses on raising awareness of our failing education system.

House investigators are hauling in Attorney General Pam Bondi to answer for what lawmakers say is a troubling disappearance of documents tied to disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein.

The House Oversight Committee voted 24-19 on Wednesday to subpoena Bondi for a deposition, escalating a fight with the Department of Justice over its handling of records from the sprawling Epstein investigation. Lawmakers say the DOJ may have pulled tens of thousands of pages from public view despite a federal law requiring the material to be released.

The move was spearheaded by Rep. Nancy Mace, who blasted the Justice Department earlier in the day and accused officials of misleading the public about what has actually been disclosed. [Though we would point out that Mace herself vowed to reveal her tits, only to redact them with grainy footage.]

“AG Bondi claims the DOJ has released all of the Epstein files. The record is clear: they have not,” Mace wrote on X, calling the saga “one of the greatest cover-ups in American history.”

.@RepNancyMace‘s motion passed. We voted to subpoena Pam Bondi and to release the files of those who sexually harass others in Congress.

This is about transparency and going after predators, not politics. pic.twitter.com/kH9lghjJn2

— Rep. Ro Khanna (@RepRoKhanna) March 4, 2026

Four Republicans – Reps. Lauren Boebert, Scott Perry, Tim Burchett and Michael Cloud – joined Democrats on the panel to force the subpoena through.

The dispute centers on the Epstein Transparency Act, passed almost unanimously by Congress last year. The law ordered the Justice Department to publicly release its trove of investigative material related to Epstein and his convicted accomplice, Ghislaine Maxwell.

In January, the DOJ released more than 3 million documents tied to the case. But the department later said it would not release the remaining files, estimated to include another 2.5 million documents.

Since then, watchdogs and journalists say the situation has gotten even murkier.

According to reports, thousands of records that had briefly been available online have vanished from the public database. CBS News reported Tuesday that more than 47,000 files – totaling about 65,500 pages – were taken down by late February.

Some of the withheld records reportedly included internal FBI interview summaries and notes – including material tied to a woman who has accused President Donald Trump of sexual abuse when she was a minor.

Trump has never been charged with wrongdoing in connection with Epstein and has said he had no knowledge of the financier’s criminal conduct.

The Justice Department has not publicly explained why the documents were removed or why millions more remain under wraps. CNBC said the DOJ did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Bondi’s forthcoming deposition could become one of the most explosive congressional confrontations yet in the long-running battle over the Epstein records – a case that has fueled years of speculation about powerful figures tied to the late sex offender.