68.6 F
Chicago
Thursday, June 18, 2026
Home Blog Page 336

UK, France, Germany Slam Iran For ‘Reckless’ Retaliation – Are Ready To Assist Israel And US

UK, France, Germany Slam Iran For ‘Reckless’ Retaliation – Are Ready To Assist Israel And US

Leaders from Germany, the UK and France are waving their fists over Iran’s “reckless” retaliatory strikes in the region, and say they’re ready to throw down to stop Tehran from further responses. 

Britain’s Prime Minister Keir Starmer makes a statement from Downing Street in central London on Feb. 28, 2026, following the U.S. and Israeli strikes on Iran. Jonathan Brady/POOL/AFP via Getty Images

On Sunday, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, and French President Emmanuel Macron stood in solidarity, saying in a joint statement that they were “appalled” by Iran’s “reckless” retaliatory strikes that targeted not only US and Israeli military sites in the region – but other allies as well (Dubai got the business, among others). 

“We will take steps to defend our interests and those of our allies in the region, potentially through enabling necessary and proportionate defensive action to destroy Iran’s capability to fire missiles and drones at their source,” the statement reads. “We have agreed to work together with the US and allies in the region on this matter.” 

British forces have already engaged – with a Typhoon fighter jet shooting down an Iranian drone with an air-to-air missile during a defensive air patrol in Qatar. 

As the Epoch Times notes further, Starmer addressed his nation on the matter later on March 1, revealing that he also granted a request from the United States to use UK bases in the region to attack Iranian missile sites. But he affirmed that this did not mean that he was tasking British armed forces to join the United States in offensive action.

“Iran has launched sustained attacks across the region, at countries who did not attack them,” Starmer said. ”They’ve hit airports and hotels where British citizens are staying. This is clearly a dangerous situation.”

The prime minister noted that at least 200,000 British citizens were in the Middle East, including residents, families on vacation, and others in transit.

He defended his government’s decision to allow the United States to use British bases to attack Iranian missile launchers and storage depots, calling it a “defensive” action and saying the only way the threat will be stopped is by destroying the missiles at their source.

“Iran is pursuing a scorched earth strategy, so we are supporting the collective self-defense of our allies and our people in the region, because that is our duty to the British people,” Starmer said.

Meanwhile, Merz announced on X that he would meet with U.S. President Donald Trump on March 3 to discuss the latest developments, noting that he remained in close contact with other European powers, Israel, and the affected region.

“Now is not the time for finger-pointing, but for unity and joint action,” he said.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Tyler Durden
Mon, 03/02/2026 – 02:45

When The Return Flight Is The Only Goal: Merz Ends China Trip

When The Return Flight Is The Only Goal: Merz Ends China Trip

Submitted by Thomas Kolbe

It took some time for the supposed difference between Annalena Baerbock’s feminist foreign policy and the approach that the diplomatic corps under Chancellor Friedrich Merz would take to become clear. What has changed is less the substance than the performative act. Under the Sauerland-born Merz, tone and gestures shifted—the staging is meant to appear more masculine, sober in style, perhaps more professional, less embarrassingly activist—but the content remains largely unchanged.

Ironically, arch-enemy Donald Trump became the spiritus rector of a new theatrical element in the Chancellor’s media showcase. In Trump-style, Friedrich Merz announced on February 25 the climax of his China trip: the conclusion of a major order for the European aerospace giant Airbus. China will acquire 120 aircraft, models A320, A350—details to follow later—ordered from the company that has become the most successful “success child” of the European project.

The Chinese hosts are politely attentive: they don’t let the Chancellor return home empty-handed and grant him quick fame in the 2026 super-election year. Images, headlines, pathos—the stage is set. The Chancellor as doer, as promoter of German and European interests, as a foreign-policy acquirer in global competition—a German Donald Trump?

A sober look at the numbers puts the theatrics in perspective. Year after year, Chinese customers fill Airbus’s order books with hundreds of aircraft. Major orders from China are no exception; they are part of a long-established procurement rhythm. Demand is structural, not spontaneous—the production slots had long been planned and coincided with the Chancellor’s trip by chance.

A media storm in Trump-style, with the small but crucial difference that the U.S. president returns from foreign trips with real investments in his industry’s production capacity. Factories are built, sites expanded, capital flows measurably into American value creation. Whatever the magic formula—tariffs, deregulated economy, robust growth—America attracts real investments, binding capital and industrial substance domestically.

Friedrich Merz, by contrast, presents routine industrial orders as personal triumphs. He frames scheduled large orders as the result of his diplomatic prowess—a German deal-maker in action. But the crucial difference is that for career politician Merz, only media impact counts. One brings production capacity home; the other brings press releases.

Let’s credit Merz: his trip falls during a critical election phase. In such moments, images, gestures, and quickly digestible wins matter. Fleeting triumphs feed the narrative of the doer in the chancellery, regardless of catastrophic domestic performance.

It is also reassuring that Germany continues to receive the highest protocol honors in China and that Beijing evidently values German history more than the sad present. Reception in the Great Hall of the People by Premier Li Qiang, a personal audience with President Xi Jinping, evening dinner, military welcome at the airport. The choreography is flawless: flags, honor guards, carefully staged images. Protocol-wise, Germany still plays in the Champions League.

Geopolitically, however, the picture is different. Merz called China a “strategic partner” before the trip without defining what this means in the current world situation. Beijing firmly backs Moscow in the Ukraine war. How does the Chancellor think the EU’s 20 sanction packages against Russia affect relations with Beijing? Every new measure against Russia is not just a signal to the Kremlin but also a geopolitical marker toward China.

Merz could personally observe China’s perspective on Germany and the EU’s growing isolation in geopolitics. Protocol pomp does not reverse strategic erosion. From Beijing’s perspective, the question is simple: what offer should one make to a delegation from a country that has weakened its industrial base through self-inflicted dismantling while simultaneously complaining about trade disadvantages?

The consequences of European eco-socialism are immense. Germany has become a net importer of capital in trade with China. The trade balance increasingly tilts against it. In key industrial sectors, competitive advantages have eroded; energy-intensive value creation is under pressure.

Against this backdrop, sympathy for the Chancellor and his economic representatives is limited. The misery is homegrown. Every new regulation, levy, or transformation mandate tightens industry further, reducing Germany’s flexibility in global competition.

In China—a political dictatorship under a single party but economically largely guided by market efficiency—German-European moralizing meets maximum incomprehension. There, scale effects, productivity, market share, and technological sovereignty matter. Moral self-assurance does not replace industrial strength.

Merz lamented unfair Chinese trade practices given Germany’s deep trade deficit. Market access must be fair, disadvantages avoided. The words sound determined, aimed at reciprocity in global trade. And they sound naive.

Because isn’t it worth asking whether Europeans have long been world champions of hidden protectionism? Whether German and European policies repeatedly sparked the grotesque race toward emission-free economies via maximal repression? Regulatory hurdles, taxonomies, supply-chain laws, CO₂ border adjustments—all form a dense mesh of indirect market barriers.

It is by no means China’s fault that Germany’s economic propulsion—industry, engineering, machinery, automotive—has, under EU regulations and energy-transition fanaticism, disassembled at accelerated speed. Those who systematically eliminate their own cost advantages lose ground globally and geopolitically.

Merz exemplifies a European political class eager to blame external actors for structural weaknesses. He is living proof that Europe and Germany have a long way to go before a brutally honest assessment of problems.

Flattering China and the apparent alignment on population surveillance and censorship expansion makes Europe, at best, an unloved vassal of Beijing.

Europe, as a cultural entity, should seek salvation in alignment with Americans. In the bastion of free markets, deregulation, and rational energy policy—in the land of ICE and Christian-humanist cohesion—lies the most likely, only acceptable future for European policy.

China sees Europe as a dumping ground for surplus production—Europe as a decaying heir of the colonial era. European markets absorb domestic overcapacity. Structural dependency on resources like rare earths and energy grows. The leverage is not in Europe.

The era of European dominance is over. Moral self-assertion against factual dependence? Helpless. Puerile. Expensively paid.

Friedrich Merz’s visit to China was a campaign appearance for the CDU. He followed diplomatic protocols but was substantively unremarkable. The images were staged; strategic impact remains limited. Europe deserves better policy.

* * * 

About the author: Thomas Kolbe, a German graduate economist, has worked for over 25 years as a journalist and media producer for clients from various industries and business associations. As a publicist, he focuses on economic processes and observes geopolitical events from the perspective of the capital markets. His publications follow a philosophy that focuses on the individual and their right to self-determination.

Tyler Durden
Mon, 03/02/2026 – 02:00

Is The US Military Campaign Against Iran Part Of Trump’s Grand Strategy Against China?

Is The US Military Campaign Against Iran Part Of Trump’s Grand Strategy Against China?

Authored by Andrew Korybko,

The goal is to obtain proxy control over Iran’s enormous oil and gas reserves so that they can be weaponized as leverage against China for coercing it into a lopsided trade deal that would derail its superpower rise and therefore restore US-led unipolarity.

Trump claimed that the US’ military campaign against Iran is to “defend the American people”, while many critics have alleged (whether in jest or not) that it’s to distract from the Epstein Files, but few observers realize that it’s actually all about China. It was explained here that Trump 2.0 “decided to gradually deprive China of access to markets and resources, ideally through a series of trade deals, in order to imbue the US with the indirect leverage required to peacefully derail China’s superpower rise.”

To elaborate, “The US’ trade deals with the EU and India could ultimately result in them curtailing China’s access to their markets under pain of punitive tariffs if they refuse. In parallel, the US’ special operation in Venezuela, pressure on Iran, and simultaneous attempts to subordinate Nigeria and other leading energy producers could curtail China’s access to the resources required for fueling its superpower rise.”

The resource dimension that’s relevant to Iran is a major part of the US’ “Strategy of Denial”.

That’s the brainchild of Under Secretary of War for Policy Elbridge Colby, and it was expanded on in this analysis here from early January.

As was written, “US influence over Venezuela’s and possibly soon Iran’s and Nigeria’s energy exports and trade ties with China could be weaponized via threats of curtailment or cut-offs in parallel with pressure upon its Gulf allies to do the same in pursuit of this goal”, which is to coerce China into indefinite junior partnership status vis-à-vis the US through a lopsided trade deal.

Most observers missed it, but the new National Security Strategy calls for ultimately “rebalance[ing] China’s economy toward household consumption”. This is a euphemism for radically re-engineering the global economy through the previously described means, namely curtailing China’s access to the markets and resources responsible for its superpower rise, so that it no longer remains “the world’s factory” and thus ends its era of being the US’ only systemic rival. US-led unipolarity would then be restored.

Circling back to Iran, “[it] represented about 13.4% of the total 10.27 MMbpd of oil [that China] imported by sea” last year per Kpler, hence why the US wants to control, curtail, or outright cut off this flow. ‘Plan A’ was to achieve this through diplomatic means for replicating the Venezuelan model that entered into effect after Maduro’s capture. Iran flirted with this but didn’t commit since it would entail the country’s strategic surrender, ergo why Trump authorized military action for achieving this instead.

In pursuit of this, Trump promised the IRGC in his video announcing his country’s military campaign against Iran that they’d have immunity if they laid down their arms. This reinforces the abovementioned claim that the US wants to replicate the Venezuelan model since it strongly suggests that he envisages newly US-aligned IRGC running Iran in the political interim before new elections just like the newly US-aligned Venezuelan security services run their own country during their own current political interim.

Such a scenario would avert Iran’s possible “Balkanization”, thus preserving the state so that it can then resume its prior role as one of the US’ top regional allies, which might then aid the Azeri-Turkish Axis’ efforts to project Western influence along Russia’s entire southern periphery. In that event, the US would simultaneously obtain unparalleled resource leverage over China via proxy control of Iran’s oil and gas industries while tightening its encirclement of Russia, which would deal a powerful blow to multipolarity.

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ZeroHedge.

Tyler Durden
Sun, 03/01/2026 – 23:40

US-Israel War On Iran ‘Decided ⁠Weeks Ago’ Under Cover Of Nuclear Talks: Report

US-Israel War On Iran ‘Decided ⁠Weeks Ago’ Under Cover Of Nuclear Talks: Report

Via The Cradle

The unprovoked US-Israeli war against Iran launched on Saturday had “been planned for months, and the ⁠launch date ⁠decided ⁠weeks ago,” even as the US and Iran carried out indirect nuclear negotiations, an Israeli defense official told Reuters.

Washington and Tel Aviv renewed negotiations in February over Iran’s nuclear program. President Trump was under pressure from Israel force Iran to give up uranium enrichment, as well as its ballistic missile program and support for regional resistance forces (such as the pro-Iranian Iraqi popular mobilization units, and Hezbollah, etc). Amid the negotiations, Trump sent an “armada” of US naval ships and warplanes to the region, threatening to launch an attack if officials in Tehran refused to make a deal. After the latest round of talks on Thursday, a senior US official told Axios the talks were “positive.”

Omani Foreign Minister Badr Albusaidi, who mediated the talks, said the talks had shown “significant progress.” Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi also expressed optimism, saying both sides had shown a “clear seriousness” about getting a deal. However, the US and Israel launched large-scale attacks against Iranian targets early Saturday, suggesting the negotiations had never been serious. In the wake of the attacks, Omani Foreign Minister Albusaidi said that the negotiations he mediated had been “deliberately undermined.”

Getty Images

Mehran Kamrava, director of the Iranian studies unit at the Arab Center for Research and Policy Studies and professor at Georgetown University in Qatar, stated that Israel “appears to have launched an attack designed to derail the negotiations.

A planning document prepared years ago by the US think tank Brookings Institution provided a blueprint for regime change in Iran that outlined such a strategy. 

“Which Path to Persia? Options for a New American Strategy Toward Iran,” written by analysts at the Brookings Institution in 2009, recommended that the US carry out negotiations ahead of a planned attack to give the false impression that the US had done everything possible to avoid war.

Iran could then be blamed for rejecting a “good deal,” thereby shifting blame onto the Islamic Republic for what would be an unpopular war both among the US public and internationally.

The best way to minimize international opprobrium and maximize support (however, grudging or covert) is to strike only when there is a widespread conviction that the Iranians were given but then rejected a superb offer—one so good that only a regime determined to acquire nuclear weapons and acquire them for the wrong reasons would turn it down,” the document stated.

“Under those circumstances, the United States (or Israel) could portray its operations as taken in sorrow, not anger, and at least some in the international community would conclude that the Iranians’ brought it on themselves’ by refusing a very good deal,” the document added.

After the start of the US and Israeli strikes, Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) launched barrages of ballistic missiles and drones at targets in Israel and US bases in the region.

Damage to targets within Israel is difficult to assess due to media censorship imposed by the Israeli military. However, sirens were heard across Israel as the military issued a “proactive alert to prepare the public for the possibility of missiles being launched toward the state of Israel.”

The military announced the closure of schools and workplaces, with exceptions for essential sectors. The Israel Airports Authority announced its airspace had been closed to all civilian flights.

Amid the Iranian attacks, Israel’s energy sector shifted into emergency mode. Israel’s energy ministry instructed Greek firm Energean to temporarily suspend production at its offshore Karish gas field.

The ministry also ordered the closure of the country’s largest gas field, Leviathan, as a precautionary measure. Some units of the Haifa oil refinery were also shuttered.

* * *

Iranian FM statement:

Tyler Durden
Sun, 03/01/2026 – 22:40

Joe Biden Accuses Trump Of Planning To ‘Steal’ The Midterms, Claims Credit For Border Security

Joe Biden Accuses Trump Of Planning To ‘Steal’ The Midterms, Claims Credit For Border Security

Former President Joe Biden made one of his rare post-presidential appearances Friday in Columbia, South Carolina, stepping onto a stage at a downtown art museum to accept a lifetime achievement honor from the state’s Democratic Party. 

During the speech, Biden claimed that Donald Trump is rigging the 2026 midterms before a single vote has been cast. 

“Here’s the good news,” Biden told the crowd. “In America, the power still belongs to the people for now. And the way to show the power is vote, show up, and vote. And folks, when we do that, that’s bad news for Donald Trump, and he knows it. That’s why he’s trying to pull out more and more barriers – put them up. He’s trying to steal the election because he knows he can’t win your vote, so he’s going to do everything he can to prevent you from wanting to vote.” 

The “barriers” Biden was referencing are Trump’s push for photo ID requirements and proof of citizenship for first-time voter registration –  the two key components of the SAVE America Act currently awaiting a Senate vote. 

Biden framed these measures as existential threats to democracy.

What he did not mention is that the American public has already rendered its verdict on these policies — and it is not remotely close.

A Pew Research Center survey found that 83% of Americans support requiring a government-issued photo ID to vote, including 71% of Democrats, 76% of black Americans, and 82% of Hispanics. 

Gallup found nearly identical results: 84% in favor of photo ID requirements, with 98% of Republicans, 84% of independents, and 67% of Democrats on board. Eighty-three percent also support requiring proof of citizenship for first-time voter registration. 

“The bottom line is this,” CNN’s chief data analyst Harry Enten said earlier this month. “Voter ID is not controversial in this country. A photo ID to vote is not controversial in this country. It is not controversial by party, and it is not controversial by race. The vast majority of Americans agree … that, in fact, you should have a photo ID to be able to vote.”

Biden was speaking, in other words, about a policy his own base largely supports — insisting it’s election theft. 

Biden also attempted to rewrite his legacy by claiming he had secured the southern border.

The day I left office, border crossings in the United States were lower than the day that I entered an office inherited from Trump,” he said. “He is — I won’t say it. That’s just a fact.” 

What Biden failed to mention was that border crossings hit record highs on his watch. The numbers were so high that even Barack Obama’s Department of Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson said back in 2024 that they were unsustainable.

During his presidency, he claimed that he needed new legislation to address the border crisis and insisted that it was up to Congress to give him the authority he needed to close the border. The Biden administration only chose to act on the border when polling showed that Trump had a significant advantage on the issue of immigration.

No matter how hard he tries, Joe Biden can’t rewrite his record on the border. Rather than own his legacy, he’s proving exactly why Donald Trump won in 2024.

Tyler Durden
Sun, 03/01/2026 – 22:10

I Do Solemnly Swear: How Profanity Has Taken Hold Of American Politics

I Do Solemnly Swear: How Profanity Has Taken Hold Of American Politics

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

“Respectfully, f–k off.” Those words by California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s spokesperson, Izzy Gardon, summed up the current race to the bottom of American politics.

Democrats appear in a competition of the profane where voters are now subject to a virtual carpet-bombing of f-bombs and other indecent language.

Gardon’s response was to a standard media inquiry after Newsom’s controversial statement to a black interviewer.

In an Atlanta event, Newsom declared: “I’m like you … I’m no better than you. I’m a 960 SAT guy … literally a 960 SAT guy. You’ve never seen me read a speech because I cannot read a speech.” It was widely denounced as racist, but Newsom insisted that he was only talking about his struggle with dyslexia.

The spin quickly fell apart after his statement, “I’m like you … I’m no better than you,” which suggested he thought the audience in Atlanta had low scores.

Reporters followed up to ask for proof about his disability, including his claim that “I cannot read.” The response was an f-bomb from Gardon.

Newsom, too, unleashed a profane attack on Sean Hannity of Fox News — who gave the California governor a chance to respond to his critics.

When Hannity criticized Newsom’s comments in Atlanta, the governor posted several four-letter words on X, concluding with: “Spare me your fake f—ing outrage.”

There was a time when political leaders maintained basic standards of civility and avoided profanity in public.

Presidents like Lyndon Johnson could be quite salty in private, but drew a line in public.

Notably, one of Richard Nixon’s objections to his tapes being made public was the inclusion of foul language used in the Oval Office. He noted in his book In the Arena that “since neither I nor most other presidents had ever used profanity in public, millions were shocked.”

It was not long ago that Trump’s then-new White House Communications Director Anthony Scaramucci shocked many with a profane diatribe.

He defended it as “an Italian thing.”

At the time, I wrote that, as someone who was raised in an Italian family, we clearly had a different upbringing. I noted that if I used that language in public, my Sicilian grandmother would have ended the diatribe with a backhand.

Profanity sometimes added to the mystique of military leaders who sought to convey that they were unconcerned with social norms as warriors.

Gen. George Patton was known to drop some doozies. In one scene in the famous eponymous movie, Patton is asked about the Bible next to his bed and whether he really prayed. Patton responds, “I sure do … Every godd–n day…”

Politics was different. The public once looked to political leaders as role models who exemplified social norms.

It now appears that profanity is viewed as an essential element of political speech on the left.

Katie Porter this week thrilled a crowd by waving around a sign reading “F–k Trump.”

Porter was previously criticized for using such language to abuse staffers to “get out of my f–cking shot” in an interview.

At the State of the Union, Rep. Rashida Tlaib wore a button on the House floor reading “F–k Ice.

Such behavior is not just limited to Democrats. President Trump has used profanity on occasion.

However, the Democrats appear to have made profanity a signature element in their campaigns.

Rep. Jasmine Crockett, who is running for the U.S. Senate in Texas, seems a perpetual profanity machine, regularly telling figures like Elon Musk to “f–k off” and dropping the f-bomb at a higher rate than prepositions.

Some are virtually giggly over swearing in public. Rep. Maxine Dexter (D-Ore.) declared, “I don’t swear in public very well, but we have to f–k Trump. Please don’t tell my children that I just did that.” The crowd roared with approval that Dexter was feigning being naughty with dirty words.

There is a belief that profanity is a way to connect to younger voters who trash-talk and seem to like what was once called “potty mouths.”

However, there is also a clear use of profanity as a way to establish your bona fides with the mob.

Trashing conventions of civility and decency is a way to convey that you are part of a radical chic.

Figures like Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer have tried cringeworthy efforts to connect with voters by dancing or cooking burgers. Schumer then joined his colleagues in dropping the f-bomb to show that he is very, very angry.

The use of profanity has risen alongside the rise in rage rhetoric.

Democratic politicians now regularly call Trump, Republicans, and law enforcement “Nazis” and “Gestapo.” Many are promising to carry out a crackdown on Trump supporters once they are returned to power, including through criminal prosecutions.

Figures like Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer have tried cringeworthy efforts to connect with voters.

The devolution of American politics is occurring as politicians and pundits call for radical changes to our constitutional system. Showing that you do not respect social conventions adds to your cache as a radical leader.

In my book Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution, I explore comparisons with our current politics and the conditions that led to the French Revolution.

There is a value to dehumanizing one’s opponents to justify radical, even violent, action. Profanity conveys your self-authenticating anger to the mob. You may be an establishment politician, but you are one of them.

It rarely lasts. Revolutions tend to devour their own.

Swearing up a storm will not satisfy the mob very long. Democrats hope to ride the rage wave back into power and assume that, once they have that power, the mob will simply disappear in gratitude.

It is likely that politicians of both parties will continue this trend toward potty-mouth politics. If you are speaking with civility, you are not mad enough.

These politicians are feeding a rage addiction in this country by showing that they do not respect any limits of decency or decorum in seeking radical changes.

Mark Twain said that “under certain circumstances, urgent circumstances, desperate circumstances, profanity provides a relief denied even to prayer.”

The difference today is that the profanity itself is a prayer by politicians seeking power.

There is a belief that, if you want to be sworn in as the new governor of California or senator from Texas, you’d better start swearing now.

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

Tyler Durden
Sun, 03/01/2026 – 21:40

Trump Admin Seeks Months-Long Pause For Tariff Refunds

Trump Admin Seeks Months-Long Pause For Tariff Refunds

Just days after Senate Democrats introduced a bill seeking tariff refunds after the Supreme Court struck down many of President Trump’s (IEEPA-backed) tariffs, the Trump administration says it needs months of additional time to weigh its steps, as a wave of refund requests pours in from importers seeking billions of dollars in tariffs.

The bill, sponsored by 22 Senate Democrats led by Sens. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Edward Markey (D-Mass.), and Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), would require U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to issue refunds over the course of 180 days and pay interest on the refunded amount.

“Trump’s illegal tax scheme has already done lasting damage to American families, small businesses and manufacturers who have been hammered by wave after wave of new Trump tariffs,” Wyden said in a statement.

“Senate Democrats will continue fighting to rein in Donald Trump’s price-hiking trade and economic policies. A crucial first step is helping people who need it most, by putting money back in the pockets of small businesses and manufacturers as soon as possible.”

The Epoch Times’ Aldgra Fredly reports that, according to the senators, tariffs implemented under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) brought in about $175 billion in revenue

However, in a late-night Feb. 27 filing, the Department of Justice (DOJ) asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to delay for roughly four months before taking a procedural step that would begin refund proceedings.

While the justices invalidated the tariff regime, they did not lay out a detailed roadmap for what should happen next, or how the government should handle the tens of billions of dollars already collected.

Bill Pan reports for The Epoch Times that, the DOJ’s filing urged the Federal Circuit to wait until the Supreme Court’s judgment is finalized, a process that can take 32 days.

After that, it requested an additional 90-day delay to “allow the political branches an opportunity to consider options.”

DOJ lawyers also pushed back at the companies pressing to restart refund litigation at the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) as soon as possible, accusing their attorneys of seeking an accelerated schedule out of an “apparent desire to be the center of attention” in the proceedings.

“Complexity in the future counsels appropriately careful process, not breakneck speed,” the government wrote, arguing that a delay would not irreparably harm importers because monetary losses can be remedied through repayment with interest.

While acknowledging a refund process is likely to follow its loss at the Supreme Court, the DOJ warned that “the coming process will take time.”

To underscore that point, DOJ cited a 1998 mass-refund dispute over a harbor maintenance tax. In that case, American importers won a $730 million refund in the CIT, but it took years for the government to fully distribute the money, and the DOJ emphasized that the Trump tariff case involves a substantially larger sum.

The DOJ did not say it plans to ask the Supreme Court to rehear the case. Trump has said he intends to explore the option.

“It doesn’t make sense that Countries and Companies that took advantage of us for decades, receiving Billions and Billions of Dollars that they should not have been allowed to receive, would now be entitled to an undeserved ‘windfall,’ the likes of which the World has never seen before, as a result of this highly disappointing, to say the least, ruling,” Trump wrote on Truth Social earlier on Feb. 27.

“Is a Rehearing or Readjudication of this case possible???”

Similar concerns were echoed by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who wrote in his dissenting opinion that “refunds of billions of dollars would have significant consequences for the U.S. Treasury.”

“The Court says nothing today about whether, and if so how, the Government should go about returning the billions of dollars that it has collected from importers,“ Kavanaugh wrote. ”That process is likely to be a ‘mess,’ as was acknowledged at oral argument.”

Tyler Durden
Sun, 03/01/2026 – 21:10

The Iran Question Is All About China

The Iran Question Is All About China

By Zineb Riboua, author of Beyond The Ideological

Iran is most often discussed as a nonproliferation problem, a sponsor of terrorism, a regional spoiler. Each of these framings captures a real problem, but none captures what matters most. The nuclear file, the militia archipelago stretching from Lebanon to Yemen, the question of Gulf security architecture: these only acquire their full meaning when read against the backdrop of Chinese grand strategy.

Beijing has spent years and billions of dollars building Iran into a structural asset. Everything that follows in the Middle East flows from this fact. Which is why Operation Epic Fury is the first American military campaign that threatens to sever that asset. By striking Iran directly, the Trump administration is dismantling, whether by design or by consequence, a pillar of China’s regional architecture.

The urgency of saying so plainly has never been greater. In June 2025, Israel launched Operation Rising Lion, a 12-day campaign of precision strikes that destroyed Iranian enrichment facilities, killed over 30 senior commanders and a dozen nuclear scientists, and drew the United States into direct strikes on 3 nuclear sites. The Islamic Republic’s deterrent mythology, cultivated over four decades, collapsed within a fortnight. In late December, the largest protests since 1979 erupted across all 31 provinces, fueled by economic freefall and a population that no longer believed in the regime’s strength. The government responded in January 2026 with massacres that killed thousands, prompting the European Union to designate the IRGC as a terrorist organization and further increasing the isolation of the regime.

By any conventional measure, the Islamic Republic is weaker than at any point in its history. Yet China was moving to put it back together. This week, it was reported that Tehran was close to finalizing a deal for Chinese-made supersonic anti-ship cruise missiles, weapons capable of threatening American carriers now massing in the Persian Gulf. Earlier, Chinese suppliers shipped over 1,000 tons of sodium perchlorate, a key missile propellant ingredient, to the Iranian port of Bandar Abbas, enough to rebuild a substantial portion of the ballistic missile stockpile that Israel had just spent 12 days destroying.

Understanding why Beijing would do this and what it means for the United States requires looking beyond Iran and toward the broader contest in which Iran plays a role.

The Energy Lifeline

Start with oil, because oil is where the entire relationship begins. China buys around 90% of Iran’s crude exports at steep discounts. The shipments travel on a ghost fleet of tankers that switch off their transponders and relabel their cargo as Malaysian or Indonesian crude to circumvent American sanctions. Since 2021, the cumulative value of these purchases has exceeded $140 billion. This makes China the main reason the Islamic Republic has not gone bankrupt.

The arrangement works beautifully for Beijing. It gets cheap oil for its industrial base, saving billions annually compared to market-rate suppliers. And in exchange for what amounts to a discount at the pump, China acquires durable influence over a nation of 90 million people sitting astride the world’s most consequential energy corridor. Tehran, increasingly cut off from every other major economy, has nowhere else to turn. When Ayatollah Khamenei received Xi Jinping in 2016, he praised the 25-year strategic partnership as “totally correct and endowed with wisdom,” adding pointedly that “Western governments have never been able to win the Iranian nation’s trust.” The supreme leader was not merely flattering a guest. He was describing a structural reality: Iran’s economy now runs on Chinese money, and both capitals know it.

The 25-year Comprehensive Strategic Partnership signed in 2021, committing China to invest an estimated $400 billion across Iran’s energy, banking, telecommunications, and infrastructure sectors, formalized what was already underway. A freight rail corridor now connects the Iranian city of Qom to Yiwu, China. The deeper this integration runs, the less leverage anyone else has over Tehran, and the more leverage Beijing accumulates.

The Digital Leash

The technology dimension of this compact is less discussed than the oil trade, but arguably more revealing of its true character. Huawei and ZTE have built significant portions of Iran’s telecommunications infrastructure. As far back as 2010, ZTE signed a $130 million contract to overlay a surveillance system onto Iran’s state-managed telephone and internet networks. Huawei became the country’s largest telecommunications equipment provider, supplying location-tracking services to mobile carriers and pitching Iranian officials on content-censorship tools by emphasizing that, as a Chinese company, it had the relevant expertise.

Since then, the cooperation has expanded to include AI-enabled facial-recognition cameras from firms such as Tiandy and Hikvision, deep packet inspection tools, and centralized traffic management systems. Iran’s National Information Network, a state-controlled domestic intranet that progressively severs citizens’ access to the open internet, was modeled on the Great Firewall of China and built with Chinese technical assistance.

The practical consequences came into focus during the January 2026 massacres. When the regime imposed a near-total internet shutdown to prevent footage of the killings from reaching the outside world, it did so on infrastructure that Chinese firms had years helping to construct. The surveillance technology that enables the IRGC to track, identify, and suppress dissidents was supplied by the same companies that perform identical functionsfor the Chinese Communist Party in Xinjiang. Beijing is providing the Islamic Republic with the tools to survive its own population’s rejection and is doing so for the same reason it buys the oil: a dependent Iran is a useful Iran.

The Red Sea and the Logic of Attrition

Iran’s value to China extends beyond energy and technology into the domain of proxy warfare. Consider the Red Sea. When Iran’s Houthis began attacking commercial shipping in the Bab el-Mandeb Strait in late 2023, the consequences rippled across the global economy. Container traffic through the Red Sea fell by 90% within 3 months. Goods worth roughly $1 trillion were disrupted in the first 7 months. The rerouting of ships around Africa’s Cape of Good Hope added nearly 2 weeks and about $1 million in fuel costs to every voyage, driving freight rates between Asia and Europe.

The United States bore the heaviest burden of response. Carrier strike groups were deployed, air campaigns were sustained for months, and precision munitions costing between $1 million and $4 million per interceptor were expended at a rate that, by mid-2025, had consumed roughly a quarter of America’s high-end missile interceptor inventory. China, throughout all of this, did nothing.

Chinese-flagged ships sailed through with less interference. Beijing contributed no vessels to the multinational protection force and issued no condemnation of the attacks. Even more so, Chinese satellite companies were providing the Houthis with intelligence to enable their targeting of commercial vessels.

The logic here requires no conspiracy theory to explain. Every dollar the United States spends defending Red Sea shipping lanes is a dollar unavailable for submarine production, Pacific basing, or Taiwan contingency planning. Every carrier group stationed in the Gulf of Aden is a carrier group absent from the Western Pacific. Iran’s proxies, armed with Iranian weapons and supported by Iranian intelligence, function as a mechanism of American strategic attrition, and the costs fall entirely on Washington while Beijing accumulates strategic gains.

Courting America’s Gulf Allies

There is also a further dimension to this picture that receives too little attention. China benefits from the Iranian threat in a second, less obvious way: it uses the anxiety that Iran generates among Gulf Arab states to deepen its own relationships with those states, which happen to be America’s most important regional partners.

The Gulf monarchies have lived for decades under the shadow of Iranian aggression. They managed this historically through close alignment with the United States. But confidence in American reliability has eroded, a process that began with the Obama administration’s pursuit of the nuclear deal with Tehran, deepened after the muted response to the 2019 Aramco attacks, and accelerated after the withdrawal from Afghanistan. Gulf leaders increasingly believe they cannot rely solely on Washington.

China has stepped into this uncertainty with commercial patience and diplomatic ambition. Saudi Arabia now sells more oil to China than to any other country. The UAE has woven Huawei technology into its critical tech infrastructure. Chinese firms are building ports, railways, 5G networks, and smart cities across the Gulf. And in March 2023, Beijing brokered the Saudi-Iranian normalization agreement, a diplomatic achievement that announced China’s arrival as a Middle Eastern power broker. That same year, Saudi Investment Minister Khalid Al-Falih declared publicly that a multipolar world had emerged and that cooperation between the Gulf states and China would be “a significant part of the new order.”

The pattern should be legible by now: Iran’s threat pushes Gulf states to diversify their partnerships, and this very diversification increases Chinese leverage. And the more leverage China holds over Gulf capitals, the less likely those capitals are to side with Washington on the questions Beijing cares about most: Taiwan, semiconductor export controls, sanctions enforcement, and the future of the dollar-based financial order.

Why This Is Really About Taiwan

All of which brings us to the central problem. Trump didn’t launch Operation Epic Fury to only punish Khamenei for his massacres. He launched it because every year Washington spends managing Tehran is another year Beijing buys in the Pacific, and the administration has decided the trade isn’t worth it anymore. The orientation of the Middle East will determine whether the United States can prevail in the defining confrontation of this century: a Chinese move against Taiwan.

First, consider energy. China imports roughly 70% of its oil, most of it transiting the Strait of Malacca. In a Taiwan contingency, those sea lanes become contested. Beijing will need alternative energy sources and will look westward to Iran, Russia, and any Gulf state willing to sell outside the dollar system. If the Middle East has already drifted into Beijing’s economic orbit by the time that crisis arrives, China begins the confrontation with a strategic energy reserve that American planners cannot disrupt.

Second, consider force posture. The United States cannot fight a two-theater war. The Red Sea campaign demonstrated this concretely: a regional militia armed with Iranian weapons consumed a quarter of America’s interceptor stockpile in a matter of months. A Middle East that demands permanent crisis management bleeds the American military of the ships, aircraft, and munitions it needs for Pacific deterrence. A Middle East restructured toward stability, where Iran’s proxy architecture has been degraded, and Gulf partners are aligned, can be managed with a lighter footprint, freeing decisive combat power for the theater that will define the century.

Third, consider coalitions. If a Taiwan crisis comes, the United States will need allied nations to impose punishing costs on China through sanctions, financial exclusion, and technology denial. The effectiveness of that coalition depends on whether energy-producing states participate. If Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and others are so deeply engaged in the Chinese economic system that they refuse to curtail oil sales to Beijing during a Pacific war, the entire sanctions architecture collapses at the moment it is needed most.

The Choice

For all these reasons, the Islamic Republic has been the central pillar of a regional order that Beijing assembled, and Operation Epic Fury is now cracking that pillar. But the strikes should not be understood as an end in themselves. They are the opening act in the larger contest against China, because Iran is where Beijing’s Middle East architecture is most concentrated and most vulnerable. Collapse the Islamic Republic and you remove the single greatest drain on American strategic bandwidth, expose the fragility of every client relationship Beijing has built from Tehran outward, and free the United States to concentrate on the Pacific with a credibility that twenty years of pivot talk never produced.

That outcome, however, requires following through.

The administration has already rejected the negotiated settlement that would leave the clandestine arsenal operational and the Chinese-built surveillance state in place. What remains is to use the convergence of military pressure, regime fragility, and allied momentum to finish what the opening act began. The Venezuela playbook offers a template. Recognize a legitimate transitional authority, marshal international support around the transition, and let the regime’s own fragility do most of the work while American pressure forecloses Beijing’s ability to reconstitute what has been broken.

The nature of the threat makes the harder course not just preferable but necessary. Tehran’s deterrent has never rested solely on its nuclear program. In January 2024, the IRGC launched ballistic missiles from shipping containers aboard a converted cargo vessel purchased for less than 20 million dollars—a fraction of what a warship costs, yet merchant hulls are far harder to sink than frigates, as decades of naval experience have shown. Iran now possesses a mobile, survivable, and largely undetectable strike platform that can operate from any port or shipping lane, hitting from vectors no existing defense plan anticipates. A state that can threaten American carriers from unmarked hulls in any ocean cannot be managed through arms control. Its total removal from the board changes the geometry of great-power competition entirely.

None of this would be possible without the groundwork already laid. What much of the Western conversation has missed, consumed as it has been by debates over proportionality and narratives of supposedly Israeli aggression, is that Israel has been the actor most consistently performing the strategic work that American interests require. Israel broke the Iranian-led axis, dismantled Hezbollah’s command structure, and proved that the entire edifice could be shattered by force.

The fashionable framework that reduces the Middle East to a morality tale of Israeli excess has been strategically blind, obscuring the fact that the most consequential campaign against Chinese regional infrastructure in this century was fought not by the United States but by its closest Middle Eastern ally, acting largely alone and under relentless international censure. In this sense, Operation Epic Fury picks up where Israel left off, escalating from proxy destruction to direct confrontation with the hub itself.

Beijing’s response confirms the diagnosis. Chinese satellites provided Tehran with real-time intelligence on American force deployments, including detection of F-35A, F-15E, A-10C, and THAAD system arrivals at Muwaffaq Salti Air Base in Jordan.

And the desperation runs in both directions. At the SCO summit, Pezeshkian begged Xi to treat Iran as “a friendly and determined ally.” Beijing is obliging, because the collapse of the Islamic Republic under American pressure would sever China’s corridors.

No comparable opportunity to inflict this kind of strategic damage on Chinese positioning has presented itself since the end of the Cold War.

It bears repeating: the Iran question was never about Iran. Remove the Islamic Republic from the equation and China loses its pawns for a Taiwan contingency. Leave it in place and the Middle East remains what Beijing designed it to be: a second front that Washington can never afford to leave and can never afford to stay in. Trump’s strikes are the first move by an American president who appears to understand that the road to the Pacific runs through Tehran.

Tyler Durden
Sun, 03/01/2026 – 20:40

Mid-Atlantic Braces For Another Winter Blast Before A Spring Warmup

Mid-Atlantic Braces For Another Winter Blast Before A Spring Warmup

Winter in the Mid-Atlantic region is certainly winding down, and March is always an unpredictable month. Early next week, a fast-moving Alberta Clipper is forecast to bring yet another round of wintry weather to the region before a spring warm-up arrives by mid-month.

Marko Korosec, lead forecaster at SWE, wrote in a new weather note that the Alberta Clipper is set to spread snow, ice, and freezing rain from the Midwest to the Mid-Atlantic beginning Sunday and continuing through Tuesday.

Korosec continued:

A new winter storm will set the stage for another snowstorm event early next week, with a new pack of snow that will blanket areas recently impacted by the storm Hernando.

From Sunday through Tuesday, a fast-moving Alberta Clipper winter storm will race from the Midwest to the Mid-Atlantic, travelling along the southward-surgeing frigid Arctic cold pool, beneath the southern lobe of the Polar Vortex aloft.

The Clipper storm is a system fueled by a fresh surge of Arctic air mass diving south from Canada into the U.S. These storms typically form in the lee of the Canadian Rockies (Alberta) and quickly move across the northern United States towards the East.

These systems are not fueled by high moisture or other winter storms, so snow amounts are less impactful but can still disrupt travel. They are followed by extreme cold air masses, characterized by a massive drop in temperature.

We are tracking a potentially impactful storm system that will barrel across parts of the nation this Sunday and Monday, leading to travel disruptions with a wintry mix of snow and ice. As the lobe aloft dips south, it brings another deep freeze plunging southeastward from Canada into the U.S. in the following days.

A Clipper winter storm to deliver new snow from the Midwest to the Mid-Atlantic

The storm will impact areas from Chicago and Detroit to New York City and Philadelphia, with Monday morning rush-hour travel disrupted by fresh snow and locally ice or freezing rain.

The intensifying polar jet stream will keep the Arctic high over Canada strong, locking the Great Lakes and the Northeast in a deep freeze through mid-week, resulting in cold temperatures for the first month of the meteorological spring.

Before we dig into the details of the impactful new Winter Storm, it is essential to understand the background mechanisms governing the Polar Vortex. It remains the primary driver of rapid weather changes and intense Arctic outbreaks across Canada and the United States during winter or early spring.

That’s right. 

For folks in the Mid-Atlantic, this winter has been historic (see here), despite Al Gore’s broken-record global-warming pitch for the last three decades, repeated at Davos earlier this year. However, warmer weather is set to return to Washington, D.C., with temperatures in the coming weeks reaching 70°F.

Mid-Atlantic residents may hope only for warmer weather to dial back heating demand amid the worsening power bill crisis in the region.

Tyler Durden
Sun, 03/01/2026 – 20:10

Trump Vows ‘American Energy Dominance’ In Texas Rally Ahead Of Primary Elections

Trump Vows ‘American Energy Dominance’ In Texas Rally Ahead Of Primary Elections

Authored by Travis Gilmore via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

CORPUS CHRISTI, Texas—President Donald Trump promised “American energy dominance” during a rally Friday at one of the nation’s biggest export hubs for energy and liquid natural gas (LNG) products. 

President Trump speaks about the American energy industry at the Port of Corpus Christi in Texas on Feb. 27, 2026. Travis Gillmore/The Epoch Times

“With the men and women here today, we’re unleashing America’s potential, strengthening our security, [and] increasing our prosperity,” Trump said. 

“I’m delighted to be here at this national treasure, one of the largest energy exports anywhere in the world.” 

He spoke on a cargo dock at the country’s busiest port–in terms of revenue tonnage, including approximately 42 percent of all LNG exports nationwide–while flanked by oil tankers containing Venezuelan crude.

The administration started seizing tankers in December 2025, and the Department of Justice is pursuing forfeiture proceedings. 

Refineries nearby, including CITGO and Valero facilities, are among the only U.S. operations capable of refining Venezuela’s heavy crude oil.

Hanna Eubanks–whose husband has worked for Valero for 10 years, currently as a compressor mechanic–told The Epoch Times she attended the rally to show her family’s “1,000 percent” support for the president and the oil and gas industry.

She said the administration’s policies provided “support, money, and food on the table.” 

Trump ran on a “drill, baby drill” platform and enacted a series of related executive orders since taking office for a second term.  

Eradicating regulations while promoting domestic energy production is a theme of the presidency, as Trump seeks to lower the cost of living by reducing energy prices. 

He highlighted efforts in his first term to upgrade the port and dredge the channel, allowing for more traffic and economic activity.

“Since that, crucial investment companies have flocked here, creating tens of thousands of jobs and generating millions and millions of dollars in revenue for your community,” Trump said.

Oil production has increased by 600,000 barrels a day since January of last year, he noted.

“Texas will keep on drilling, Corpus Christi will keep on shipping, and the United States of America will keep on winning, winning, winning like we’ve never won before,” Trump told the crowd. “And together, we will make our country richer and stronger and safer and prouder and freer and greater than ever before.”

The president met with administration officials at the port for a briefing on energy shortly before he took the stage. 

“Corpus is the lynchpin of American energy dominance,” Energy Secretary Chris Wright said during the event.

Primary election season is underway in the state, and the president endorsed a number of candidates. He stopped short of picking a favorite in the senatorial race, calling both Republicans, incumbent Sen. John Cornyn and state Attorney General Ken Paxton, “great people.”

The hotly contested race in the Lone Star State will see the triumphant Republican in the primary face off against a Democratic opponent, either Rep. Jasmine Crockett or state Rep. James Talarico.

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott and Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick spoke about the importance of voting in the midterm elections.

Actor Dennis Quaid speaks at President Donald Trump’s American energy dominance rally at the Port of Corpus Christi in Texas on Feb. 27, 2026. Travis Gillmore/The Epoch Times

Actor Dennis Quaid, a native Texan born in Houston and now living in Austin, made an appearance, much to the delight of the crowd. 

“Hello, Texas, my home state,” Quaid said after the president invited him onstage. “I love Corpus Christi. I love Donald Trump.”

Thousands of supporters started queuing under the Harbor Bridge early in the morning, and the line stretched for blocks as people waited in hopes of getting into the rally. 

The Epoch Times witnessed about two dozen protesters near the entrance waving signs and yelling at Trump supporters. A police line formed after the event to separate the groups.  

Tyler Durden
Sun, 03/01/2026 – 19:50