Authored by Lance Roberts via RealInvestmentAdvice.com,

💰 Q1 Earnings Season Begins

As a fragile ceasefire with Iran hangs in the balance and oil trades near multi-year highs, the Q1 earnings season is arriving in one of the most negatively positioned markets in years. That backdrop may be exactly the reason it’s worth reconsidering the “fade the rally” stance we posited last week. For individuals who have not been in the financial markets for very long, there is an important lesson to learn.

“The markets are designed to inflict the maximum amount of pain on the maximum number of participants at any given moment.”

Right now, given the numerous “Purveyors of Persistent Doom” on social media, the most crowded trade on Wall Street isn’t a long position…it’s fear. Furthermore, as we discussed last week, after 5 weeks of consecutive declines, the market rally this past week was not unexpected.

“Since 1965, the S&P 500 has recorded 26 separate instances of five or more consecutive weekly declines. That’s roughly once every 2.3 years, and these streaks feel catastrophic in real time. This is when investors make the most mistakes over time. The emotional stress of the decline, combined with “doomsayers,” drives investors to sell at the bottom. It is important to understand that, while these streaks feel alarming in real time, historical evidence suggests they function more as contrarian buy signals than as warnings of further collapse.”

In fact, that rally was one of the strongest in nearly a year, despite the constant stream of negative headlines. The S&P 500 surged on relief that U.S.-Iran tensions had temporarily de-escalated, gaining ground and recapturing the 200-day moving average on a closing basis for the first time since the initial shock of the conflict sent it plunging through that critical floor in mid-March. That single technical event, a clean close back above the 200-DMA, changes the conversation about what comes next, especially with the Q1 earnings season now underway.

The question everyone is wrestling with is simple: do you fade this rally, or do you use it to add exposure? I’ve been skeptical since March, and I still have reservations. But the data is shifting, and intellectual honesty requires acknowledging that.

Three Contrarian Signals That Aren’t Easy To Ignore

Let’s start with sentiment. The AAII Sentiment Survey saw bearish readings spike to 52.9% at the March low, one of the highest in eight years and well above the long-term average of 31.0%. That has since pulled back to 35.5%, still above average, while bullish sentiment is at just 33.1%, below the historical norm of 37.5%. Historically, whenever the bull-bear spread reaches these levels of negative divergence, forward returns over the subsequent 12 months have been strongly positive. The market tends to move against the crowd, and right now, the crowd is still more scared than optimistic.

That negative sentiment has also manifested itself in the cash and options markets.

“We are now seeing early signs of retail capitulation across both cash and options. Last week, retail flows were net sellers across both platforms – an infrequent occurrence that has only been observed 18 times since January 2020 (most recently the week of April 7-11, 2025). Historically, forward returns following these signals have been positive on average, with performance improving over longer horizons. S&P 500 returns have been positive ~82% of the time by T+60, with average returns of +4.1%, and average positive returns of +6.9%.” – Goldman Sachs

Goldman Sachs trader Shawn Tuteja recently noted that the options market’s implied correlation skew has been pricing very low correlation on the call side, effectively suggesting that the right-tail risk in the S&P 500 was underpriced heading into last week. That asymmetry, excessive put protection, underpriced upside, is exactly the type of positioning squeeze that produces face-ripping rallies. We saw one last week. There may be more ahead.

The third signal is our own Money Flow Breadth Ratio, or MFBR. When the MFBR drops below 30%, our 25-year backtest identifies a genuine capitulation washout. In those circumstances, the subsequent return profile flips dramatically: a positive outcome at one month 100% of the time, positive at six months, and a 100% win rate at twelve months. We’re in that zone right now. That doesn’t mean pain can’t persist for another few weeks, but it does mean the odds strongly favor higher prices a year from today.

The Q1 Earnings Season Could Be The Catalyst

The Q1 earnings season will begin in earnest this coming week, with the major financials reporting starting with Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan. What’s important to understand is that analysts have already trimmed estimates heading into the announcements. The bottom-up Q1 EPS estimate fell 0.3% during the quarter itself, versus a historical average decline of 1.6% to 4.2% over the past five to twenty years. In other words, the bar has been reset lower than it appears on the surface, which sets up a classic beat-and-raise scenario if corporate America can simply maintain its recent pace. FactSet estimates Q1 year-over-year earnings growth at 13.2%, up from the 12.8% expectation at the start of the year, with nine of eleven sectors projected to show positive growth. Barclays recently bumped its full-year 2026 S&P 500 EPS forecast to $321, projecting 15% to 16% annual growth.

The Q1 earnings season matters even more than usual right now because it provides a factual anchor in a market driven almost entirely by headline risk. Investors need something concrete to price. Strong numbers from JPMorgan, Bank of America, Netflix, and TSMC, the first major reporters, would confirm that corporate America is absorbing the oil shock and geopolitical uncertainty better than feared. That confirmation is the trigger that shifts money from the sidelines back into equities. Think of what happened in Q1 2003. When U.S. forces entered Iraq, the S&P 500 had already sold off aggressively on the uncertainty. Once the conflict began in earnest and earnings season confirmed business resilience, the index gained more than 25% in the following six months. The Q1 earnings season was the evidence the market needed that the macro fear had been overpriced.

Will that be the case this time? I don’t know for certain, but when everyone is negative about everything, the market tends to find something to latch onto.

There’s a valuation argument here that also deserves attention. The forward P/E on the S&P 500 stood at 22.0x on December 31. As of today, with prices down roughly 5% from the start of the year and earnings estimates rising modestly, that multiple has compressed to 19.8x, below the five-year average of 19.9x. That’s not cheap by any historical standard, but it represents a genuine reset from the stretched valuations that made us cautious in January. With the Q1 earnings season potentially delivering another round of upward revisions, valuations could look even more reasonable by the time reporting wraps up.

The Risks That Could Still Derail Everything

I want to be honest about what could go wrong, because this market isn’t out of the woods. The Iran ceasefire remains fragile. We’ve watched this pattern before: a burst of optimism on de-escalation language, followed by a return to hostilities that sends oil back toward recent highs near $111 a barrel. Every leg higher in crude acts like a slow tax on both corporate margins and consumer purchasing power. That’s a direct headwind to the earnings beat cycle we need to see from the Q1 earnings season to validate higher prices.

“Ceasefires are fragile by definition… and we’ve already seen strikes overnight across the Gulf. You can hand-wave some of that as lag effects, but the disagreement around proxies (e.g. Lebanon with Israel) leaves plenty of scope for this to break. Ultimately though, the market will judge one thing… actual flows through the Strait over time.  I struggle to see new highs for Equities, but positioning still argues for forced buying to run its course first. Europe in particular feels extended… a “fair” move might have been +2–3%, not +5%. From here, it’s all about triangulation… rates, credit, and oil. Rates matter most and are function of not just where oil goes, but where it settles. Credit will likely see aggressive covering as tail hedges decay… so less signal there in the near term. Vol compression ties it all together in determining fair spot.” – Goldman Sachs

The Federal Reserve is also paralyzed in a way that markets haven’t fully priced. With the CME FedWatch tool showing a 99.5% probability of no rate change at the April meeting, and zero-rate-cut expectations now extending through most of 2026, the policy backstop that investors have leaned on since 2020 isn’t available. The 10-year Treasury closed near 4.36%, and CTAs have pushed their Treasury shorts to maximum levels, which in turn creates an overshoot risk that could send yields spiking further on any oil-related inflation surprise. When bonds and equities both sell off together, as we saw in March, there is nowhere to hide in a traditional portfolio.

So Is It Time To Add Exposure?

This isn’t the environment to aggressively add exposure to risk. However, we can selectively add to our holdings heading into the Q1 earnings season. However, we are still maintaining a short leash in case things reverse quickly. The combination of a recaptured 200-day moving average, extreme bearish investor sentiment that has historically resolved higher, deeply depressed put-call ratios acting as coiled fuel for any upside surprise, a Q1 earnings season entering with a low bar and improving guidance, and valuations that have genuinely reset from their January extremes, that’s a setup that demands action. Not reckless action. Measured action.

My recommendation is to add exposure selectively to sectors with the strongest earnings momentum: technology, financials, and healthcare, in that order. Use any geopolitical flare-up that tests the 200-DMA as a re-entry point rather than a reason to exit. If oil de-escalation holds and the Q1 earnings season delivers even close to the 13.2% growth FactSet is projecting, the path of least resistance for the second quarter is higher.

The traders who will get destroyed in this environment are the ones who fade every rally out of fear and chase every selloff into panic. The data says the extreme pessimism of March was a buying signal. The Q1 earnings season is the catalyst that will prove or disprove it.

We will continue to watch the data closely and trade accordingly.

🔑 Key Catalysts Next Week

Q1 earnings season arrives in force alongside a stacked economic calendar; this is the most dense week of crosscurrents since the March FOMC. Six of the nation’s largest banks report in a three-day blitz, Netflix sets the tone for mega-cap tech, and Thursday delivers a triple-header of Retail Sales, Philly Fed, and Industrial Production that will reshape the macro narrative heading into the April 27 FOMC meeting.

Goldman Sachs and BlackRock open the season Monday morning. Goldman is the M&A bellwether. Q1 set a record for deal activity, and GS derives a higher share of revenue from investment banking than any of its major peers. BlackRock’s report will be watched for AUM flows, private credit exposure (a growing risk theme), and how institutional allocators positioned through the March oil shock. Tuesday escalates with JPMorgan, the market’s definitive “economy report card.” Jamie Dimon’s macro commentary carries as much weight as the numbers.

The trajectory of net interest income, loan loss provisions, and consumer credit quality will tell us whether the March shock left scars on Main Street. Wells Fargo is alongside for the consumer banking read. Johnson & Johnson adds the healthcare sector barometer. Wednesday brings Bank of America, Citigroup, and Morgan Stanley to round out the bank earnings wave. The collective message from six megabank reports will answer whether the“soft landing” thesis survived Q1 or whether credit stress, CRE maturities, and consumer deterioration are showing up in provisions.

On the economic side, Tuesday’s March PPI is the upstream inflation signal; February ran hot at +0.7%, and feeds directly into the PCE calculation that the Fed watches. Wednesday’s Beige Book provides the qualitative color from all 12 Fed districts ahead of the April 27 FOMC. But Thursday is the marquee data day: March Retail Sales will reveal whether the consumer held up amid oil at $100+ and tariff price hikes; Philly Fed is the second April factory survey, alongside Empire State from Wednesday; and Industrial Production will tell us if factory output contracted alongside the negative payrolls trend. Netflix, after the close on Thursday, will be the first mega-cap tech to report and set the sentiment template for the Big Tech earnings wave that follows.

Bottom line: Banks tell us if the financial system is absorbing the shocks. Retail Sales tell us if the consumer is. Netflix tells us if growth is. All in one week. Define your risk levels before Monday’s open.

Footage posted on X appears to show a deranged man hammering away on top of a U.S. Air Force C-130H Hercules parked at Shannon Airport on Ireland’s west coast on Friday.

“A man breached security at Shannon Airport in Ireland, climbed onto a parked C-130 Hercules, and damaged it with a tool,” the Clash Report wrote on X.

WATCH: A man breached security at Shannon Airport in Ireland, climbed onto a parked C-130 Hercules, and damaged it with a tool.

He was arrested. pic.twitter.com/uls2tfgGND

— Clash Report (@clashreport) April 11, 2026

Local media outlet Clare FM described the incident as a “security breach,” with airport operations briefly suspended while police arrested “the person, understood to be a male,” who was “seen in the vicinity of a United States Air Force C-130 Hercules transport aircraft that had been parked on a remote taxiway at the airport.”

US Air Force C-130H Hercules 91-1653 landed at Shannon yesterday from Rosecrans Air National Guard air base St Josephs Kansas, via St. John’s Canada. It spent the night at Shannon, and hasn’t yet gone in to its next military base.#USMilitaryOutOfShannon pic.twitter.com/BkllQx68HX

— Shannonwatch (@shannonwatch) April 11, 2026

“A man breached security at Shannon Airport in Ireland. It’s understood that the person climbed onto the wing of the aircraft and caused damage to the fuselage with an implement, possibly an axe, while it was parked,” the outlet said.

In recent months, at least one far-left group has attacked a critical supply chain node supporting the F-35 stealth fighter jet program in the UK. There are no indications yet from authorities as to whether the C-130 attacker was part of a left-wing threat network

Summary: 

• President Trump announces start of “clearing out the Strait” as a favor to the rest of the world as two U.S. Navy guided-missile destroyers passed without incident.

• Peace talks in Pakistan begin in indirect format, led by Vance and on Iran side – Ghalibaf, Arachchi – expected to continue tomorrow

• Saturday sees more Israeli strikes on Lebanon, with Hezbollah supporting Pakistan talks but rejecting ‘separate deal’ directly with Israel.

• Trump on talks and potential bigger future attacks on Iran: “You don’t need a backup plan” as Iran’s “military is defeated”.

*  *  *

Trump Announces Start Of “Clearing Out” The Strait As A “Favor” To RoW

Earlier reports appears to have been confirmed as three US officials have stated to The Wall Street Journal that two U.S. Navy guided-missile destroyers passed through the Strait of Hormuz on Saturday, marking the first transit of American warships through the waterway since the war began six weeks ago.

President Trump took to social media to explain what was going on. But first, he clarified a few things to the ‘fake news media’…

The Fake News Media has lost total credibility, not that they had any to begin with. Because of their massive Trump Derangement Syndrome (Sometimes referred to as TDS!), they love saying that Iran is “winning” when, in fact, everyone knows that they are LOSING, and LOSING BIG!

Their Navy is gone, their Air Force is gone, their Anti Aircraft apparatus is nonexistent, Radar is dead, their Missile and Drone Factories have been largely obliterated along with the Missiles and Drones themselves and, most importantly, their longtime “Leaders” are no longer with us, praise be to Allah!

The only thing they have going is the threat that a ship may “bunk” into one of their sea mines which, by the way, all 28 of their mine dropper boats are also lying at the bottom of the sea.

Having got all that off his chest, he then confirmed the operation to open the Strait:

We’re now starting the process of clearing out the Strait of Hormuz as a favor to Countries all over the World, including China, Japan, South Korea, France, Germany, and many others.

Incredibly, they don’t have the Courage or Will to do this work themselves.

Very interestingly, however, empty Oil carrying ships from many Nations are all heading to the United States of America to LOAD UP with Oil.

Thank you for your attention to this matter! President DONALD J. TRUMP

But he wasn’t done with that. A few minutes later he followed with a shorter pithier version of the same narrative:

The Fake News Media is CRAZY, or just plain CORRUPT!

The United States has completely destroyed Iran’s Military, including their entire Navy and Air Force, and everything else. Their Leadership is DEAD!

The Strait of Hormuz will soon be open, and the empty ships are rushing to the United States to “load up.”

But, if you listen to the Fake News, we’re losing!

Iran explicitly informed the Pakistani mediator during talks that if the vessel continued its movement it would be targeted within 30 minutes and the Iran-US negotiations would be damaged.

However, no issues were reported during the ships transit of the Strait, and the move was described as a freedom-of-navigation mission.

The (successful) timing of this action – as talks begin in Islamabad – is certainly a show of strength amid the delicate negotiations.

Several US Warships Cross Hormuz Strait: Axios

Just as indirect talks kick off in Islamabad, a shocking and surprise development is being reported by Axios’ Barak Ravid, though this is not confirmed:

🚨🇺🇸🚢Several U.S. navy ships crossed the Strait of Hormuz on Saturday, U.S. official says
🚨🇺🇸🚢The move was not coordinated with Iran. It’s the first time this happens since the beginning of the war

— Barak Ravid (@BarakRavid) April 11, 2026

If accurate, are we witnessing Trump suddenly pile on more leverage before negotiations even get off the ground? It seems like the Iranians would have noticed several US Navy warships passing. Either they held off attack for the sake of pursuing peace, or this was truly done ‘stealthily’ and Iranian capabilities are degraded to the point they may have ‘missed’ it. Or is this an attempt to muddy the negotiations? Sabotage? Ravid after all has long stood accused of pushing an Israeli agenda in his reporting.

Talks Begin with Indirect Format Mediated by Pakistanis

By Saturday afternoon (local), the highest-level US-Iran-related talks since the 1979 Islamic Revolution have kicked off in Islamabad. Vice President JD Vance met Pakistan’s Shehbaz Sharif just ahead of the negotiations, and also senior Iranian officials were greeted by Sharif and other Pakistani leaders. Iran’s delegation is led by Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf and Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi. The engagement by each side has begun indirectly.

Pakistan has made clear it is working to facilitate direct negotiations between the US and Iran to fully bring to an end the six-week war in the Middle East. Sharif hailed both sides’ commitment to engaging constructively, and “expressed the hope that these talks would serve as a stepping stone toward durable peace in the region,” his office stated in a news release.

“Vance was joined for the bilateral meeting by special envoy Steve Witkoff and President Donald Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner,” CNN reviews. “Sharif was joined by Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Sen. Mohammad Ishaq Dar, along with Interior Minister Sen. Syed Mohsin Raza Naqvi, according to a news release from the Pakistani prime minister’s office. There was no press coverage of the meeting.”

CNN also has this interesting detail on just how many officials have traveled with the Iranian side: “Iran’s delegation in Islamabad is made up of 71 people, including negotiators, experts, media representatives and security, Tasnim reported.” According to some of the latest:

Tehran reportedly set 2 main conditions. The issue of frozen funds being already accepted by Washington. Despite no strikes on Beirut, attacks in southern Lebanon are ongoing and are now part of the negotiations.

Below: Ghalibaf (Speaker of Parliament) – Araghchi (Foreign Minister) – Ahmadian (Secretary of the Defense Council) – Hemmati (Central Bank Governor)

Lebanon Fighting Has Not Stopped But Rare Diplomatic Contact Made

Fighting has not fully stopped in Lebanon, raising the possibility of derailing the Pakistan talks, after Tehran had earlier in the week threatened that it could pull out if Israel keeps ups its attacks. On Saturday, Lebanon’s Health Ministry raised the death toll from the Israeli surprise Wednesday strikes to 357, and suggested the figure could rise amid several days of search and recovery operations.

But one rare bright spot in terms of diplomatic contact, as international reports say the Lebanese and Israeli ambassadors to the United States held a phone call in the first direct contact reported between the two countries, ahead of ceasefire talks scheduled in Washington for next week.

Meanwhile, Iran confirmed it is coordinating with Lebanon to ensure ceasefire commitments are upheld across all fronts, a foreign ministry spokesperson said on state TV from Islamabad, where senior US and Iranian officials are holding talks to end the six-week war. At the same time, Lebanese officials close to Hezbollah told Reuters the group supports the Pakistan dialogue and considers it the appropriate path, rejecting a separate round of talks planned in Washington next week.

Iranian delegation in Pakistan seeks to present ‘unity’ of government/military leadership and coordination:

I told @nytimes that the size and composition of Iran’s delegation shows “that they have not come to stonewall,” but are there with full authority and seriousness to reach a deal with the United States. Such a large delegation of experts would only be deployed if negotiations…

— Vali Nasr (@vali_nasr) April 11, 2026

Israeli airstrikes have continued on a sporadic basis: “Lebanon’s National News Agency (NNA) reports that an Israeli air attack on the town of Kfar Sir in the Nabatieh district has killed four people, including a paramedic, and injured four,” writes Al Jazeera Saturday. “Another Israeli attack on the town of Zefta, also in the Nabatieh district, killed three people, including a member of the Lebanese Civil Defense, and wounded two.” There’s been an additional third attack on Toul and Nabatieh, killing three and injuring several more.

Trump: ‘No Backup Plan’ Needed Since Iran’s Military ‘Defeated’

“You don’t need a backup plan,” Trump told reporters Friday when asked about possible next steps of Pakistan talks fail, according to a report by The Hill as he departed Washington en route to Florida. “The military is defeated.”

“Their military is gone. We’ve degraded just about everything,” Trump added. These words suggest he sees the Pakistan peace process as a serious offramp. However, as we and others have reported, there’s an ongoing Pentagon build-up in the region. This has kicked off speculation that a bigger US attack could be around the corner, at that the Islamabad summit is cover for ongoing military preparations.

NEW: US officials tell the WSJ that jets have recently arrived in the Middle East, and 1,500 to 2,000 troops from the Army’s elite 82nd Airborne could arrive in the coming days, as well as thousands of sailors and Marines.

The USS George H.W. Bush carrier strike group and 11th… pic.twitter.com/dXxG9q28N5

— Faytuks Network (@FaytuksNetwork) April 10, 2026

And yet, the reality is that Iran remains in control of the Strait of Hormuz, with only a tiny trickle of ‘vetted and approved’ vessels making it through, and reportedly paying hefty toll fees to Tehran, which Trump has warned against. Iran in Pakistan is asking for sanctions to be lifted. If the US grants this, Iran will be in a better position than went the war started, which will be tantamount to gains made through the fight.

Zohran Mamdani rode a wave of progressive enthusiasm and sweeping promises to become the Mayor of New York City.

Now, as he closes in on his first hundred days in office, he’s learning that governing is a lot harder than campaigning, and a new poll suggests New Yorkers are starting to be skeptical about what they voted for.

Some of Mamdani’s campaign promises won’t be fulfilled because Gov. Kathy Hochul is refusing to subsidize them. Earlier this year, snow and trash removal problems became major issues, as residents were forced to endure eight-foot-high piles of garbage on the street and rat infestations, all while the area around Gracie Mansion was kept perfectly clean. The brutal winter also resulted in a cold-related death toll of 29. These kinds of crises test political leaders quickly, and he failed.

Then came Monday, when Mamdani held a public event to congratulate himself for New York City filing its 100,000th pothole since he took office in January.

The reaction was swift and unkind. 

“Taking credit for filling potholes is like taking credit for changing a lightbulb. It’s what you’re supposed to do,” scoffed Councilman Frank Morano (R-Staten Island) told The New York Post. 

A Marist College survey released Wednesday puts Madani’s approval rating at 48% — a number that tells an incomplete story, but not a flattering one. 

Mamdani won his election in November with just over 50% of the vote, with Andrew Cuomo coming in second at 41.6% and Curtis Sliwa at 7%.

Clearly, Mamdani is struggling to convince even progressive voters who didn’t vote for him that he’s doing a good job.

But the numbers are even more devastating when you add more context.

Former New York City Mayor Eric Adams had a 61% approval rating at the same point in his term, proving that Mamdani is having a harder time convincing New Yorkers he’s doing a good job than his predecessor did.

The Marist poll, conducted March 26-31 among 1,454 New York City adults with a margin of error of plus or minus 3.3 percentage points, reveals a city that remains skeptical but is still forming its verdict. While 30% disapprove of Mamdani’s performance. 23% remain undecided — a number that Marist polling director Lee Miringoff flagged as a meaningful vulnerability. “There are a lot of people still on the fence. The jury is out,” Miringoff told The New York Post.

The sharpest drag on Mamdani’s numbers comes from a specific and politically significant corner of the electorate: Jewish voters. Only 38% of Jewish residents view Mamdani favorably, while 55% view him unfavorably, putting him underwater with Jewish New Yorkers by 17 points. They are the only religious group in the poll giving him a net-negative rating. 

Miringoff noted Mamdani’s continued unpopularity in this community directly.

“Mamdani is going to have to pass the test of time with the Jewish community,” he said.

“Jews are the voters least likely religious group to give Mamdani the benefit of the doubt.”

It’s easy to understand why.

Mamdani has accused Israelis of genocide in Gaza, publicly backed the BDS movement, and aligned himself with left-wing activists — including Hasan Piker — whom many Jewish voters view as antisemitic. Mamdani’s wife has also come under fire for liking posts on social media celebrating the October 7 attacks in Israel.

Still, the broader portrait from the Marist poll is complicated.

Despite having an approval rating below 50%, the poll found 55% of registered voters hold a favorable view of the mayor, and 60% believe he’s fulfilling his campaign promises. Fifty-six percent say the city is moving in the right direction, and 52% think he’s changing New York for the better. Nearly 75% say he works hard. These are not the numbers of a mayor in collapse. They are, however, the numbers of a mayor who hasn’t yet closed the sale.

When asked about the poll at a Brooklyn press conference, Mamdani deflected with characteristic self-assurance.

“You know, I will always leave the grades to New Yorkers themselves,” he said.

“What I will say is that we are coming to the end of a hundred days in office, and we have sought to make this period one where we provide New Yorkers with a glimpse as to what these next four years will look like.”

Summary: 

• Axios reporting that ‘several’ US Navy warships crossed the Hormuz Strait on Saturday without coordination with Tehran in a huge, surprising development.

• Peace talks in Pakistan begin in indirect format, led by Vance and on Iran side – Ghalibaf, Arachchi.

• Saturday sees more Israeli strikes on Lebanon, with Hezbollah supporting Pakistan talks but rejecting ‘separate deal’ directly with Israel.

• Trump on talks and potential bigger future attacks on Iran: “You don’t need a backup plan” as Iran’s “military is defeated”.

*  *  *

Several US Warships Cross Hormuz Strait: Axios

Just as indirect talks kick off in Islamabad, a shocking and surprise development is being reported by Axios’ Barak Ravid, though this is not confirmed:

🚨🇺🇸🚢Several U.S. navy ships crossed the Strait of Hormuz on Saturday, U.S. official says
🚨🇺🇸🚢The move was not coordinated with Iran. It’s the first time this happens since the beginning of the war

— Barak Ravid (@BarakRavid) April 11, 2026

If accurate, are we witnessing Trump suddenly pile on more leverage before negotiations even get off the ground? It seems like the Iranians would have noticed several US Navy warships passing. Either they held off attack for the sake of pursuing peace, or this was truly done ‘stealthily’ and Iranian capabilities are degraded to the point they may have ‘missed’ it. Or is this an attempt to muddy the negotiations? Sabotage? Ravid after all has long stood accused of pushing an Israeli agenda in his reporting.

Talks Begin with Indirect Format Mediated by Pakistanis

By Saturday afternoon (local), the highest-level US-Iran-related talks since the 1979 Islamic Revolution have kicked off in Islamabad. Vice President JD Vance met Pakistan’s Shehbaz Sharif just ahead of the negotiations, and also senior Iranian officials were greeted by Sharif and other Pakistani leaders. Iran’s delegation is led by Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf and Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi. The engagement by each side has begun indirectly.

Pakistan has made clear it is working to facilitate direct negotiations between the US and Iran to fully bring to an end the six-week war in the Middle East. Sharif hailed both sides’ commitment to engaging constructively, and “expressed the hope that these talks would serve as a stepping stone toward durable peace in the region,” his office stated in a news release.

“Vance was joined for the bilateral meeting by special envoy Steve Witkoff and President Donald Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner,” CNN reviews. “Sharif was joined by Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Sen. Mohammad Ishaq Dar, along with Interior Minister Sen. Syed Mohsin Raza Naqvi, according to a news release from the Pakistani prime minister’s office. There was no press coverage of the meeting.”

CNN also has this interesting detail on just how many officials have traveled with the Iranian side: “Iran’s delegation in Islamabad is made up of 71 people, including negotiators, experts, media representatives and security, Tasnim reported.” According to some of the latest:

Tehran reportedly set 2 main conditions. The issue of frozen funds being already accepted by Washington. Despite no strikes on Beirut, attacks in southern Lebanon are ongoing and are now part of the negotiations.

Below: Ghalibaf (Speaker of Parliament) – Araghchi (Foreign Minister) – Ahmadian (Secretary of the Defense Council) – Hemmati (Central Bank Governor)

Lebanon Fighting Has Not Stopped But Rare Diplomatic Contact Made

Fighting has not fully stopped in Lebanon, raising the possibility of derailing the Pakistan talks, after Tehran had earlier in the week threatened that it could pull out if Israel keeps ups its attacks. On Saturday, Lebanon’s Health Ministry raised the death toll from the Israeli surprise Wednesday strikes to 357, and suggested the figure could rise amid several days of search and recovery operations.

But one rare bright spot in terms of diplomatic contact, as international reports say the Lebanese and Israeli ambassadors to the United States held a phone call in the first direct contact reported between the two countries, ahead of ceasefire talks scheduled in Washington for next week.

Meanwhile, Iran confirmed it is coordinating with Lebanon to ensure ceasefire commitments are upheld across all fronts, a foreign ministry spokesperson said on state TV from Islamabad, where senior US and Iranian officials are holding talks to end the six-week war. At the same time, Lebanese officials close to Hezbollah told Reuters the group supports the Pakistan dialogue and considers it the appropriate path, rejecting a separate round of talks planned in Washington next week.

Iranian delegation in Pakistan seeks to present ‘unity’ of government/military leadership and coordination:

I told @nytimes that the size and composition of Iran’s delegation shows “that they have not come to stonewall,” but are there with full authority and seriousness to reach a deal with the United States. Such a large delegation of experts would only be deployed if negotiations…

— Vali Nasr (@vali_nasr) April 11, 2026

Israeli airstrikes have continued on a sporadic basis: “Lebanon’s National News Agency (NNA) reports that an Israeli air attack on the town of Kfar Sir in the Nabatieh district has killed four people, including a paramedic, and injured four,” writes Al Jazeera Saturday. “Another Israeli attack on the town of Zefta, also in the Nabatieh district, killed three people, including a member of the Lebanese Civil Defense, and wounded two.” There’s been an additional third attack on Toul and Nabatieh, killing three and injuring several more.

Trump: ‘No Backup Plan’ Needed Since Iran’s Military ‘Defeated’

“You don’t need a backup plan,” Trump told reporters Friday when asked about possible next steps of Pakistan talks fail, according to a report by The Hill as he departed Washington en route to Florida. “The military is defeated.”

“Their military is gone. We’ve degraded just about everything,” Trump added. These words suggest he sees the Pakistan peace process as a serious offramp. However, as we and others have reported, there’s an ongoing Pentagon build-up in the region. This has kicked off speculation that a bigger US attack could be around the corner, at that the Islamabad summit is cover for ongoing military preparations.

NEW: US officials tell the WSJ that jets have recently arrived in the Middle East, and 1,500 to 2,000 troops from the Army’s elite 82nd Airborne could arrive in the coming days, as well as thousands of sailors and Marines.

The USS George H.W. Bush carrier strike group and 11th… pic.twitter.com/dXxG9q28N5

— Faytuks Network (@FaytuksNetwork) April 10, 2026

And yet, the reality is that Iran remains in control of the Strait of Hormuz, with only a tiny trickle of ‘vetted and approved’ vessels making it through, and reportedly paying hefty toll fees to Tehran, which Trump has warned against. Iran in Pakistan is asking for sanctions to be lifted. If the US grants this, Iran will be in a better position than went the war started, which will be tantamount to gains made through the fight.

By Julianne Geiger of OilPrice

Russia has restarted limited oil loadings at its Black Sea port of Novorossiysk after a drone attack earlier this week forced a full suspension.

Operations at the Sheskharis terminal resumed late Thursday, but only one berth is currently active. A single cargo of roughly 80,000 tons is expected to depart, well below the terminal’s normal capacity of about 700,000 barrels per day.

The restart comes after the Monday strike that caused fires at a fuel terminal and damaged loading infrastructure. Shipments were halted entirely. The loading schedule had since been cut, and there is no timeline for a full return to operations.

Fuel flows are also only partially back. Fuel oil loadings resumed Thursday, and at least one diesel cargo has been shipped since the attack, according to Reuters sources familiar with port activity. Novorossiysk is one of Russia’s main export outlets on the Black Sea and a critical node for both Russian and Kazakh crude. The port handles shipments tied to the Caspian Pipeline Consortium system, which moves crude from major Kazakhstan fields including Tengiz and Kashagan.

Damage to infrastructure earlier this week included impacts to storage tanks and loading equipment linked to CPC operations. Kazakhstan has said its export flows remain stable, but it’s now operating with reduced flexibility.

Russian export infrastructure, including Baltic ports like Primorsk and Ust-Luga and several inland refineries, have repeatedly found themselves the target of Ukrainian drone attacks.

Each hit has tightened operational capacity rather than shutting it down completely. Cargoes are still moving, but at reduced rates and with fewer loading options available.

Novorossiysk’s partial restart restores some export flow, but capacity remains constrained.

A little more than a week after Emirates Global Aluminum (EGA), the Gulf’s largest aluminum producer, halted operations at its Al Taweelah smelter following Iranian missile and drone strikes, EGA has now declared force majeure on parts of its contract book, signaling that supply chain disruptions are spreading beyond energy markets and into industrial metals.

Bloomberg obtained new documents showing that EGA invoked force majeure clauses to suspend at least some deliveries after Iranian drone and missile strikes damaged the Taweelah smelter and forced it to shut down operations.

EGA is jointly owned by Mubadala Investment Company of Abu Dhabi and the Investment Corporation of Dubai, and it reported 2.83 million tons of cast metal sales in 2025, indicating on its website that it accounted for 4% of the world’s aluminum production. The broader Middle East accounts for about 9% of global aluminum supply.

The EGA outage adds to mounting pressure on the global aluminum market, which was already strained by the closure of the Strait of Hormuz for six weeks, and still, as of this weekend, muted traffic flows through the critical waterway. Producers across the region now risk broader production cuts unless the maritime chokepoint fully reopens with no tolls. 

Aluminum futures on the London Metal Exchange have surged since the strikes, with LME Aluminum trading up 50% from a year ago. The force majeure from EGA, as well as continued Hormuz chokepoint disruptions, signals tighter global supplies that may send prices even higher.

Earlier this month, Goldman commodity specialist James McGeoch told clients, “Hard to think of a bigger metal supply shock: High degree of expectation this was where it was heading, but the initial reaction was to fade the uncertainty yesterday, that should be replaced by fresh length if history is a guide.”

Authored by Tilak Doshi via Tilak’s Substack,

The Financial Times reported on Good Friday that “more than 65 leading UK scientists” had signed an open letter, published as a Google Doc, urging the Government to abandon new North Sea oil and gas drilling in favour of renewables.

“Here is the scientific establishment speaking with one voice,” the FT tells us, warning against the supposed folly of extracting what remains of Britain’s hydrocarbon resources and to choose renewables that, according to the scientist-signatories, provide both energy security and “cheaper solutions [that] we have already, that we know work”.

Also on Good Friday, Catherine McBride OBE — co-author of the recently published report for the Great British Business Council on Britain’s climate policy-induced de-industrialisation and a plan to reverse it — published a Substack article on X titled ‘What the Greens, most MPs and the FT don’t understand about the North Sea oil and gas‘. Ms McBride and her co-authors have little time for the sheer illiteracy of the Greens and mainstream media in economic and energy issues related to the UK government’s punitive taxes on North Sea oil and gas production.

To point out that the “FT is nothing more than the Guardian with stock prices these days”, a “once mighty publications fallen into the abyss of wokery” would be only to shoot the messenger bearing the familiar pink newsprint. Let’s now turn to the message itself, lest one stand accused of employing ad hominem tactics.

What the so-called ‘consensus’ scientists say

The open letter from the 65 “scientists” declares with solemn authority: “Extracting North Sea fossil fuels will threaten lives and livelihoods.” It asserts that “around 90% of North Sea oil and gas has already been extracted”, that additional production “is unlikely to move prices”, and that the world already possesses “more global reserves of oil and gas than we can safely burn if we are to limit global temperature rise to below 2°C”.

Of course, the usual fire and brimstone warnings of climate damnation apply if we refuse to abide by ‘the Science’.

We will soon exceed the ambitious 1.5°C Paris goal. Any overshoot pushes our climate further out of balance, threatening catastrophic tipping points, including ones that could plunge the UK into a much colder climate in which we would struggle even to grow our own food.

As per the usual climate sermon, warnings of Armageddon are followed by promises of salvation: “As climate scientists, we urge leaders to look to the cheaper solutions we have already, that we know work.”

It is curious that the letter refers to “tipping points” that could plunge the UK into a much colder climate which they say would destroy British agriculture. Apparently, the climate scientists like to cover all bases, global warming or cooling.

The layman, conditioned by years of mainstream media headlines proclaiming scientific unanimity on climate matters, is meant to nod along. After all, so many experts cannot be wrong!

Yet this is precisely the illusion that the late Michael Crichton dissected so ruthlessly on scientific consensus. Genuine science advances through falsification and debate, not through petitions or press releases:

Let’s be clear. The work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. …There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.

The North Sea letter is not a scientific paper. It is a political intervention dressed in lab coats. It reveals a familiar pattern: selective data, economic illiteracy and a refusal to confront the scale of global emissions realities — above all, those of China. Like China, other large developing countries such as India, South Korea, Japan, Indonesia, Thailand, the Philippines, Vietnam and Bangladesh are stepping up generation of coal-fired power to offset Liquified Natural Gas shortages created by the closure of the Strait of Hormuz. Even Germany, the world’s leading proponent of renewable energy, is seriously considering reopening some of its coal-fired power stations in response to the energy crisis caused by the war with Iran.

Who are these “climate scientists”?

Let us begin with the signatories themselves, the supposed “leading UK climate scientists”. The letter lists 65 names with affiliations and qualifications. On the face of the document alone, without external sleuthing, only a small minority display explicit indicators of hard-science credentials in climate-relevant fields — specific post-nominals such as FRMetS and FLSW, or clear roles at institutions like the British Antarctic Survey, National Centre for Atmospheric Science or Royal Meteorological Society.

By a quick AI-assisted count, based solely on what the letter itself states, fewer than a quarter of the signatories meet the minimal threshold of verifiable hard-science standing. The rest are listed with generic “Dr” or “Prof” titles, or none at all, attached to affiliations ranging from the NHS and Wiltshire Psychology Service to community energy groups, wildlife trusts and independent roles. Several entries provide no qualifications whatsoever. This is not the roster of a disinterested scientific academy. It is a coalition of activists, communicators and academics from adjacent or non-empirical fields, many of whom have long signalled their alignment with Net Zero orthodoxy.

The letter’s primary coordinator, Dr Ella Gilbert — a climate scientist and presenter at the University of Reading’s Meteorology Department with ties to the environmental NGO Climate Outreach – has been openly described in multiple reports as the driving force behind its circulation. Professor Ed Hawkins of the same institution played a key initiating role, posting on LinkedIn to solicit signatures and stating he had “written an open letter”. There is no public evidence of external financial direction or sponsorship; the effort appears to have been an internal academic-network exercise amplified through professional channels. Yet the very act of framing it as a consensus of “climate scientists” performs the rhetorical heavy lifting. It invokes the authority of science while sidestepping the awkward reality that science is not, and has never been, a democracy of signatures.

Mad Ed says: “North Sea oil and gas: no way”

The substantive claims fare no better under scrutiny. Take the repeated assertion that “around 90% of North Sea oil and gas has already been extracted”. This figure originates not from primary geological data but from a March 2026 analysis by the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit, which aggregates North Sea Transition Authority (NSTA) projections of ultimately recoverable resources through 2050. Official NSTA data as of end-2024 records 47.7 billion barrels of oil equivalent (BOE) produced historically from the UK Continental Shelf, with 2.9 billion BOE of proven and probable (2P) reserves and a further 6.2 billion BOE in contingent resources—roughly 19% of what has already been extracted still potentially accessible.

Industry body Offshore Energies UK (OEUK) rightly notes that framing the basin as “93% drained” ignores the reserves-replacement ratio. Norway, operating under more supportive policies, has consistently replaced a higher share of its production through exploration. The UK’s low ratio of 14% over 2019-2024 reflects not inexorable geology but punitive fiscal terms, windfall taxes and licensing uncertainty under successive governments.

Only active exploration and production (E&P) investment can delineate the true commercial potential of remaining prospects. As the late economist Julian Simon observed, resources are not fixed endowments buried in the earth but functions of human ingenuity, technology and price. Proven reserves expand with higher prices or better recovery techniques; they are not a predetermined pie chart awaiting final division.

The open letter refers to “two proposed new oil and gas fields in the North Sea”, claiming that the likely lifetime emissions from them would be more than most individual nations emit in a year. Presumably the reference is to the Rosebank and Jackdaw oil and gas fields in the North Sea, with Rosebank being the largest untapped oil field in UK waters. Both are in advanced stages of development with significant infrastructure already in place and first oil could be delivered to shore by the end of 2026.

The open letter was launched in time to influence the debate over whether Ed Miliband, Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, should allow new production from the fields. He is under growing pressure to allow new production in the North Sea to combat what some call ‘the energy crisis’ sparked by the Iran war. Rachel Reeves has backed more North Sea drilling in a potential split with Miliband. The Chancellor said she was “very happy” to back exploration at Rosebank oilfield and Jackdaw gas field. Miliband, Labour’s chief Net Zero ideologue, is expected to make a decision on whether to grant licences for the two fields.

The Telegraph expects Miliband to block North Sea oil drilling, stating that he is “said to be unwavering in his opposition despite impending fuel shortages and surging oil prices”. In this, of course, Miliband is true to his “Mad Ed” designation, fiercely devoted to the UK’s immiserating “global climate leadership” role.

Economic and geopolitical illiteracy

The letter’s economic and geopolitical analysis is equally detached from reality. It laments “the volatility of oil and gas prices” that have “caused our energy and food bills to rocket — twice”, attributing this to dependence on “imported fossil fuels whose price is vulnerable to the actions of the world’s most authoritarian and least reliable leaders”. The implicit prescription appears to be greater independence through renewables. Yet this inverts the logic of comparative advantage that has enriched nations since David Ricardo.

International trade in hydrocarbons has historically buffered supply shocks precisely because diversified sources and spot markets prevent any single actor from dictating terms. The North Sea producers themselves demonstrated this in the mid-1980s by helping collapse the OPEC cartel’s administered pricing system. Britain – like most countries including large oil producers such as Saudi Arabia and Russia – remains a price-taker; incremental North Sea output will not set global benchmarks. But neither will it exacerbate volatility if it displaces imports. The alternative — deeper reliance on Chinese-manufactured solar panels, wind turbines and batteries, whose production is powered overwhelmingly by coal — merely shifts dependence to Beijing’s supply chains and the very fossil fuel infrastructure the letter condemns.

Here the letter’s silence on China’s emissions is deafening. The world’s largest emitter continues to approve coal-fired power stations at a furious pace that dwarfs Western renewables deployment, while its Nationally Determined Contributions under the Paris Agreement are little more ambitious than business-as-usual trajectories. Western Net Zero advocates prefer not to dwell on this, choosing hope over experience lest it complicate the narrative of renewable salvation.

Yet the arithmetic is merciless: even if the entire OECD ceased all emissions tomorrow — an impossibility — the impact on global temperatures by 2100 would remain marginal in IPCC-modelled scenarios, as Bjørn Lomborg has repeatedly demonstrated. The letter’s claim that “the likely lifetime emissions from two proposed new oil and gas fields in the North Sea would be more than most individual nations emit in a year” is true only in the most trivial sense; it ignores the fact that non-OECD emissions dominate the trajectory by far. Meanwhile, the UK’s share of global carbon emissions sits at 0.8%.

Our poor farmers

Farmers, meanwhile, receive the letter’s ritual concern: “rising prices and increasingly empty supermarket shelves”, “worst harvests in recent years” and “extremes of heat, drought, fire and flood”. Evidently, the letter’s signatories spent little time consulting actual IPCC studies. While the IPCC reports increases in heatwaves and some heavy-precipitation events in certain regions, it finds no clear global rise — only “low confidence” — in many of the extreme events (droughts, floods, tropical cyclones, wildfires) that are routinely invoked in climate alarmism.

One wonders when the signatories last consulted real life British farmers. The largest and most sustained rural protests of recent years — repeated tractor convoys into central London from late 2024 through 2026 — have centred not on ‘climate extremes’ but on the Government’s imposition of inheritance tax on agricultural assets above £1 million (later softened to £2.5 million after sustained pressure). Family farms face break-up, not because of marginal weather shifts but because of policy-driven cost pressures: the world’s highest electricity prices, diesel taxes exceeding 50% and regulatory burdens that make food production uneconomic.

The letter’s pastoral alarmism about “catastrophic tipping points” that “could plunge the UK into a much colder climate” is rhetorical. Earth’s 4.5-billion-year history records repeated glacial-interglacial cycles without human help; warm periods in antiquity and medieval times allowed, for instance, northern England to grow wine grapes and Greenland to support barley cultivation. The term “tipping point” itself is not a precise physical concept but a metaphor borrowed from non-linear systems. Large natural systems, per Le Chatelier’s principle in dynamic equilibrium, tend toward equilibrium when perturbed — not runaway instability.

Tropes and ideology

The signatories, like their fellow ideologues in academia, employ the cheap renewables trope. The letter urges leaders to embrace “the cheaper solutions we have already”. Renewables, we are told, are proven and cost-effective. This assertion rests on the familiar Levelised Cost of Electricity (LCOE) metric, which systematically understates the system-wide costs of intermittency: overbuilding, backup dispatchable generation (often gas-fired at inefficient part-load), grid reinforcement and balancing services. Full-cost-of-electricity analyses, incorporating adequacy and integration expenses, tell a different story — as detailed in the work of Lars Schernikau and others. Renewables’ “cheapness” is an artefact of subsidies, mandates and selective accounting, not a market verdict.

In the end, this letter, embraced and publicised by the FT, is less about science than about maintaining the climate-industrial consensus. The University of Oxford’s Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment came out recently with its analysis which echoes the conclusions of the open letter. In the open letter and in the Oxford analysis, there is no reference to the benefits of increased North Sea oil and gas production: added value to the nation’s GDP, improvements to Great Britain’s balance of payments as a net oil and gas importer, increases in Government tax revenues and oil and gas jobs and ancillary benefits in cities like Aberdeen which serve the offshore oil and gas industry.

Science advances not by petition but by relentless scepticism. The North Sea’s remaining resources — whether measured in billions of barrels of oil equivalent or in the potential unlocked by competitive exploration and production — are not a climate sin but a strategic asset. Ignoring them in favour of virtue-signalling autarky serves neither energy security nor affordability.

Britain’s leaders would do well to treat such letters with the scepticism they deserve: not as oracles, but as more noise in a debate that ideology has long sought to close. The real crisis is not the climate; it is the West’s self-imposed energy anorexia in the face of a multipolar world that has no intention of following suit.

Authored by J.B.Shurk via AmericanThinker.com,

French President Emmanuel Macron is doing that peculiar French thing again…acting tough while looking weak.  

He gave a speech last Friday at Yonsei University in Seoul during which he demanded that nations not become “vassals” of China or the United States.  Macron wants South Korea to join Canada, Australia, and the European Union in forming what he calls a “coalition of independence” (because “coalition of the willing” was taken) united by shared love for “international order,” “democracy,” and wasting money on “climate change.”

What a tool.  I understand that “the powers that be” have so successfully co-opted the West’s political systems that they regularly install absolute nincompoops as nominal leaders (Biden, Starmer, Carney, Merz, and European Queen Ursula, just to name a few) and call it “democracy,” but Macron is such a doofus that his “leadership” is laughable.  

Remember when the little Rothschild banker came to power a few months after President Trump had taken office and he couldn’t stop talking about standing up to “bullies”?  After putting on some high-heeled loafers and taking some lessons on masculinity from his former-schoolteacher-turned-much-older-wife, Macron insisted on turning a handshake with Trump into a death grip meant to showcase French power.  In that effete style of speech that Gaulish-Roman aristocrats enjoy — in which words sound as if they’re dropping from lips suckling grapes and licking honey — le petit fromage told the world that his fierce handshake and determined stare were the perfect weapons for countering President Trump.  Trump just laughed and patted the little French boy on the shoulder as one does to help the weak feel strong.

Fast-forward a decade, and Macron hasn’t learned a thing about being tough.  He still prances around the world like a eunuch looking for long-lost cojones.  He says he wants countries to resist the “hegemonic powers” of China and the United States by clinging to the rules-based “international order.”  Okay.  Good luck, tiny dancer.  

What’s left of the international order without the two most powerful nations on the planet?  The United States has assumed the responsibilities of the globe’s police chief since WWII.  Through its naval fleet, it ensures the security of maritime trade.  Through its economic clout, it ensures the stability of the international financial system.  Through its military might, it decides which dictators get black-bagged in the middle of the night.  As China continues its geopolitical ascent, its tentacles have stretched further into international organizations such as the United Nations’ World Health Organization and across continents with its Belt and Road Initiative.  Mark Carney has spent his time as Canada’s prime minister practically groveling at the feet of China’s Xi Jinping and begging the communist dictator to save his wintry vassal state from the bad orange man down south.

France, on the other hand, continues to be ejected from former African colonies whose peoples have grown tired of French meddling.  The French military excels only at surrendering.  And France remains distinct from Germany only because of the United States.  When little Macron insists on restoring a French-led “international order,” he sounds a lot like little Napoleon, who insisted on being called “emperor” while imprisoned on Saint Helena.

As for urging all who hear his grating voice to unite in defense of “democracy,” that’s a lark!  Europe is where “democracy” goes to die.  Every time non-Establishment political parties win the most votes in former nations (now just multicultural zones of Islamic conquest within the federation of European nothingness) such as France, Germany, and the Netherlands, “the powers that be” proudly block the winners from exercising any power.  

Europe’s political class shamelessly calls this the “firewall” against “far-right” political parties.  Of course, if you believe that nations should have borders and that government powers should be limited, you are designated “far-right.”  Just as Democrats bastardize language in the United States by calling everyone who cares about the Bill of Rights a “fascist,” the European Establishment labels anyone who believes in self-determination and personal liberty a “Nazi sympathizer.”  Then they prosecute the members of those fake “far-right” parties for expressing opinions out loud.  

That’s right!  Europe’s little gang of dimwitted yet dangerous dictators — Macron, Starmer, Merz, and the ruling queen — insist on locking up the “fascists” for their speech in the name of “democracy”!  When the “firewall” fails — as it did in Romania a little over a year ago — the European oligarchy simply cancels the election and insists on a rigged do-over (or outright overthrows the government as it did, with the help of the U.S. State Department and CIA, in Ukraine in 2014).  

When little European tyrants such as Macron stand on footstools, puff out their chests, and shriek about “democracy,” they have no intention of supporting the decisions of the people.  What they mean is, let’s form a European Commission of aristocrats, have them choose a ruling monarch, and call that a “democratic” election.  That’s how the nations of Europe lost their sovereignty and why the people of Europe must now bow down to unelected Queen Ursula von der Leyen.  

Even if mini-mouse Macron’s calls for “international order” and “democracy” fail to rally a sufficient posse of vassal states willing to take on the United States and China, he’ll surely find ready volunteers who want to keep shooting their economies in the gonads over “climate change,” right?  Who doesn’t want to continue wasting taxpayer dollars on fighting the weather?  While Russia, China, and the United States continue spending more on their militaries than ever before, the soft-headed “leaders” of Europe have been pretending to wage war against nature.  “Tilting at windmills” was one of Cervantes’s best jokes in Don Quixote.  The Europeans — having jettisoned their civilization for that of their Islamic invaders — no longer understand why pretending to fight imaginary monsters is funny!

For decades, Europe’s quixotic “leaders” have spent their military budgets on wind and solar energy.  In the name of “fighting climate change,” Europe’s brilliant tacticians severely limited hydrocarbon exploration, extraction, and processing.  Germany ignored scientific reason after the Fukushima nuclear accident in Japan and rid itself almost entirely of nuclear energy.  First, Europe’s braintrust made the sub-continent dependent upon the Russian Federation for energy.  Then, that same gaggle of Mensa geniuses sanctioned Russian energy in the name of Ukrainian “democracy.”  Now Europe is largely dependent on the United States, Russia, and the Middle East for energy.  Europe’s producers must spend more to make things.  Europe’s consumers must pay more to buy things.  Europe’s middle class keeps getting poorer.  How many times can Europe’s moronic “leaders” cripple their economies before Europe’s peoples raid the museums for functioning guillotines? 

If little-bitty Macron doesn’t want France to be a “vassal” of China or the United States, he should strive to deregulate his nation, protect private property, incentivize innovation, grow the economy, and encourage self-sufficiency.  Instead, France and the rest of Europe embrace bureaucratic rule-making, collective ownership, expansive welfare, centralized economic planning, and dependency upon U.S. military muscle.  If you spend your country’s wealth on fighting bad weather and providing Islamic invaders “free” food and housing, don’t complain when China and the United States refuse to take you seriously.  

To be fair to Europe’s retarded governing class, we’re fighting similar idiotic policies being promoted by the fifth-column Democrat Party in America, too.  

The difference is that Americans are actively trying to right the ship, and, as President Trump continues to demonstrate, our military can still blow things up.  

Reality is not kind to those who prefer handouts and fantasy to handwork and preparation.  Because Europe’s “leaders” have hollowed out their economies and militaries for decades, they are in no position to influence the future.  They will take what they get and be grateful…as all desperate vassals must.

Authored by Brandon Smith via Alt-Market.us

As much as many centrists and libertarians are opposed to Donald Trump’s ongoing strikes against Iran, I have to say, the downstream result might end up becoming one of the most libertarian results I have ever seen. For decades, small government activists like those in the Ron Paul movement have been calling for a comprehensive US divorce from NATO and the shutdown of America’s military bases overseas. Trump has, either deliberately or inadvertently, set this very process in motion.

The refusal of most of Europe (and Australia) to provide support in the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz might seem like geopolitical orbiting – In other words, getting involved could hurt them more than it would help them. Of course, these nations are far more exposed to the Hormuz closure and the slowdown in energy exports than the US. You would think their interests would demand a securing of the strait.

Europe is already struggling for energy resources due to the Ukraine war (a war they are deeply involved in), and this is where we stumble upon the ideological disconnect.

Europe’s Goal Is WWIII And They Expect America To Maintain The Status Quo

Europeans are perfectly willing to engage in war tensions with Russia while risking energy inflation and WWIII, all over a country that had minimal strategic or economic importance to them before the conflict. They have consistently called on the US to provide weapons and funding and intel to the Ukrainians, which we have obliged. And, they have called for American troops to stand at the forefront should a wider war erupt.

NATO and European governments love America…but only as a shield that benefits them. To be clear, it’s true that years ago NATO allies invested troops and equipment into the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, but one could also argue that, at that time, the establishment was in sync on both sides of the Atlantic.

There was no large scale movement to cut foreign aid scams (like Trump shutting down USAID). There was no movement to secure borders and prevent mass immigration. There was no movement against globalism beyond a handful of us in the alternative media working diligently to expose the truth. In the era of the early 2000s, the status quo was in full effect and Europe was happy to help in the Middle East.

Today? Not so much. The status quo has been disrupted.

Once The Cash Stopped Flowing Our “Friends” Became Scarce

It’s not surprising that once the cash stopped flowing so easily from American pockets, suddenly all of our “allies” went sour. Cuts to USAID and various foreign subsidy programs have created a shockwave in the global order. Even I have been stunned by the level of dependency of foreign nations on US monetary injections.

Once these programs started shutting down, the panic was palpable. And, once Trump demanded NATO countries start paying their fair share (5% of GDP), the breakdown in relations began. Many European social welfare programs exist exactly because they don’t have to pay for their own military defense.

The tariffs are another point of hypocrisy. Nearly ALL major European countries and economies have enforced tariffs and duties on US products for the past 60 years. When those same countries face tariffs imposed by the US, suddenly tariffs are an “act of aggression” and a line in the sand.

Trump is called an economic “bull in a china shop”, but he’s only doing to them what they’ve been doing to us for generations. Once again, the moment the status quo changes even a little and other nations are held to a similar standard, our friends no longer want to be our friends.

Europe’s Top Priority Is The Multicultural Agenda

And what about mass immigration? Ah, there’s the real divisive issue. Europe has become ground zero for a multicultural plague and EU governments are absolutely willing to sacrifice their own indigenous and largely white population to high crime, terrorism and cultural erasure in the name of a woke Utopia. The moment the US defied this ideological suicide and cracked down on open borders, the European elites turned hostile.

Europe is so enraged by any opposition to multiculturalism that they have implemented a series of Orwellian censorship laws. Tens-of-thousands of people are arrested and charged each year for “hate crimes”, which usually involve basic criticisms of open immigration. These are not governments we can break bread with.

I would point out that there are millions of people in the EU and the UK who are fighting against globalism on the political stage. Their movements are growing rapidly, from the “Restore” party in Britain to the National Rally in France and the AfD in Germany. They don’t necessarily agree with American conservatives an everything, but they are the only political groups worth aligning with in Europe today. All of them are gaining ground, but not fast enough.

Perhaps a separation from the US will actually help expedite the process? Because there is no possible way that Americans can remain in alliance with liberal European elites that want to see western culture and national borders destroyed. We’re not just at an impasse in principle, we are quickly becoming mortal enemies.

Trump’s recent call for NATO support in the Hormuz has exposed a level of hypocrisy within the organization that many libertarians and conservatives have been criticizing for years. NATO is only NATO so long as America is the rube making the bulk of the sacrifices.

Keep in mind that nothing liberal governments do is based on principle. War with Russia in Ukraine? Europe applauds and demands extensive US involvement. Send some ships to reopen a vital shipping lane in the Middle East? Suddenly they have moral qualms.

Why? There’s a lot of reasons, but I would argue that a great change is happening; an organized shift of the old world order into the “new world order”. There is a “multicultural alliance” (a globalist system) being built behind the scenes that is more important to the European elites than their relationship with the US. And, conservative movements are the enemy of this new multicultural system.

The Muslim population in Europe is currently 62 million – the stats have doubled in the past 20 years. There are 47 million third world migrants living in the region. Mass immigration has changed Europe irrevocably. At bottom, this social engineering experiment is designed to eradicate western civilization and it is THE HILL that leftists and globalists are willing to die on. Their entire vision for the future depends on it.

NATO governments are avoiding engagement in Iran, not because of some profound and principled moral stand, but because most European nations are saturated with third world immigrants who will turn on them if they enter the war in any way.

In my article “Britain Is Proof: Globalists Plan To Use Migrants As A Mercenary Army Against The West”, published in 2024, I outlined in detail the theory that European governments (and the Biden Administration in the US) were packing their borders with third world military age males to act as a covertly deployed, foreign mercenary army to subdue western populations should they rise up in revolt against the globalists.

European governments, and by extension most of NATO, are onboard with this plan. This is why war with Russia is fine, but war with Iran is not. This is also why I don’t buy into the conspiracy that the Israelis are at the top of the pyramid “controlling everything” from behind the scenes. If they were, then the European and NATO elites would have immediately joined the war effort against Iran.

There is an agenda afoot that is FAR bigger than the tiny nation of Israel or the marginal ideology of “Zionism”.

The Breakup Is Inevitable

The latest conflict is quickly leading to a breakup of NATO, with the Trump Administration broaching the topic on several occasions. After being denied use of airspace by a number of EU countries, it is possible that the US will seriously consider shutting down military bases in the region, remove nuclear weapons and leave Europe high and dry.

But, this international divorce is not about Iran, Israel, the Strait of Hormuz or even oil. It’s the result of a long running ideological clash that’s about to hit a crescendo.

One could argue that this will isolate the US from it’s allies and weaken our position in the world. I would argue that it’s our so-called “allies” that have been weakening us, and this separation is long overdue. The billions upon billions of dollars that the US spends annually to secure Europe could be used to reduce our debts here at home. Libertarians should rejoice if Trump carries out this policy.

Meanwhile, with US aid to NATO and the EU cut off, it will be much more difficult for progressive authoritarian leaders to maintain control of their respective populations (no more easy welfare programs). Their reliance on a third world invasion to subjugate western citizens might just be their undoing. It all depends on whether or not the nationalists fight back (I believe they will).

There is a potential end game here, in which European conservatives and American conservatives eventually join forces, but we’re not there yet. The geopolitical interdependency of the cold war model is going to have to die. NATO was supposedly established as a counterbalance to the hostile global ambitions of communism, but today, European and NATO governments ARE the hostile communists.

There is no reason for our alliance to continue any longer.

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