In the ultimate irony of ironies, Financial Times is reporting US officials are discussing the purchase of Ukrainian-made drone interceptors to counter Iranian drones, which some analysts say have proven harder to stop than expected.

Patriot missile interceptors used by US allies cost more than $4 million each, while the Ukrainian systems are significantly cheaper and designed to defeat the same Shahed-type drones used by Russia.

Supplies are dwindling and costs are soaring, after approaching a full week in to Iran’s retaliation on Gulf nations hosting American bases, given that Patriots have remained the interceptor of choice to defend Gulf cities as well as foreign bases, with a single Patriot interceptor possibly running over $13.5 million.

So Ukraine’s experience in facing down Russia’s significant aerial war over four years of conflict could provide for a cheaper alternative.

The Financial Times describes, citing sources familiar with the discussions, that “Ukrainian drone interceptors are proving they can take down Shaheds at a fraction of the cost.”

However, officials have also stated that any export of Ukrainian systems would need Ukrainian government approval, even if assembled abroad.

This might prove a tall order given that Ukraine is already desperate to get more defense weaponry from the West, and in reality is the last country that can just spare some major weapons systems, or even parts and ammo.

The US has formally asked for Ukraine’s help to shoot down Iran’s Shahed drones, President Zelensky confirms.

The mind numbing irony. https://t.co/u2kgkipQu6

— Tom Newton Dunn (@tnewtondunn) March 5, 2026

But President Zelensky, who has clearly expressed concern that the globe’s attention is fixed squarely on the Iran war, has affirmed he’s in talks with Qatar and the United Arab Emirates.

“Ukraine’s expertise in intercepting Shahed drones is among the world’s most advanced,” Zelensky has said. “Any cooperation must not compromise our own defenses.”

Across the Gulf, there has remained a situation of steady Iranian missile and drone attacks on US Gulf allies. Below is a breakdown of overnight and Friday morning attacks, via Newsquawk:

Saudi Arabia

• Intercepted ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, and drones, including strikes targeting the Prince Sultan Air Base and areas near Riyadh and Al-Kharj.

Qatar

• Intercepted a drone targeting Al-Udeid Air Base, the largest US military base in the region.

• Residents received emergency alerts instructing them to avoid open areas.

UAE

• Intercepted 9 ballistic missiles and 109 drones in a single day.

• Three drones fell inside the country.

• Since the war began: 3 killed and 112 injured in UAE attacks.

Bahrain

• Iranian drones were intercepted over Manama, with debris reportedly damaging buildings, including a hotel.

Broke: We need to arm Ukraine

Woke: We don’t need to arm Ukraine

Bespoke: We need Ukraine to arm us https://t.co/tc8NBa3Hpe

— Martin Skold (@MartinSkold2) March 5, 2026

Meanwhile, this sarcastic observation sums up the awkward situation perfectly: 

Broke: We need to arm Ukraine; Woke: We don’t need to arm Ukraine; Bespoke: We need Ukraine to arm us.

Authored by Eduard Braun via Mises Institute,

Germany’s push for a social-ecological market economy rests on far-reaching state interventions in energy and industry, including a government-driven hydrogen strategy. In a recent report Germany’s Federal Audit Office explicitly describes the policy as a planned economy and highlights fundamental problems. At the same time, it doubts that the government will reach its own targets, indicating that these climate-policy experiments are likely to fail even on their own terms.

Germany’s “social-ecological transformation” is the political program of turning the existing social market economy into what the government calls a “social-ecological market economy.” In practice, this means that climate and environmental targets are placed above the spontaneous outcomes of markets, and the state increasingly directs investment, production, and consumption through detailed regulation, bans, subsidies, and new bureaucratic structures.

The federal government has committed itself—through the Paris Agreement, the EU Green Deal, the EU Climate Law, and Germany’s own Climate Change Act—to achieving greenhouse-gas neutrality by 2045. On this basis, it is pushing a comprehensive restructuring of the entire energy and industrial base. Fossil fuels are to be phased out and replaced by renewable energy sources and new technologies. To enforce this, Berlin is tightening emissions limits, introducing sector-specific reduction paths, and expanding carbon pricing. At the same time, it is rolling out large-scale subsidy programs and support schemes aimed at “climate-friendly” investments, ranging from energy-intensive industries to housing, transport, and agriculture. According to the Scientific Service of the German Bundestag, the transformation will cost about 13 trillion euros (roughly 15.3 trillion dollars).

Central to this transformation is not merely setting general framework conditions, but steering concrete technological choices: the government explicitly promotes certain technologies (such as hydrogen, battery-electric mobility, and “green” industrial processes) and discourages or prohibits others. It also relies on binding planning instruments and long-term “transformation roadmaps” for entire sectors of the economy. Officially, this is presented as a modernization strategy that will preserve prosperity while making Germany climate-neutral. In reality, it increasingly replaces decentralized entrepreneurial decisions and price signals with political targets and administrative plans.

Germany’s Federal Audit Office (“Bundesrechnungshof”) is an official state institution, not a libertarian think tank. It reports to parliament and examines whether the federal government uses public funds lawfully and efficiently. Precisely this body, in its October 28, 2025 report on Germany’s national hydrogen strategy, delivers an unusually clear verdict on the economic character of current climate policy.

The report states that hydrogen is supposed to play a “key role in the energy transition,” yet “there is a lack of supply, demand, and infrastructure” (p. 2). In other words, the government is trying to build an entire market around a product that is scarcely available, scarcely needed under current conditions, and cannot be traded at scale because the necessary pipelines and facilities are missing. The Audit Office further emphasizes that “hydrogen is significantly more expensive than energy sources used to date. The Federal Government is supporting the ramp-up of the hydrogen economy with several billion euros annually, following a planned economy approach” (p. 2, emphasis added). Here, the central term—“planned economy approach”—comes directly from an official oversight body describing government policy, not from its critics.

Despite this massive use of subsidies and dirigiste steering, the Audit Office concludes that the government remains “far from reaching its goal of establishing a hydrogen economy by 2030” (p. 2). In short, the watchdog authority finds that Berlin is using a planned economy method, paying far higher costs for hydrogen than for existing energy sources, and still failing to come close to its own targets.

From the perspective of Austrian economics, none of this should be surprising. Ludwig von Mises argued that once governments move from a market order to a system of political planning, they inevitably undermine the very mechanisms—prices, profits, and losses—that coordinate economic activity. Central planners cannot know the relative scarcities, preferences, and technological possibilities that millions of entrepreneurs discover only through free exchange. The result is misallocation of capital, persistent shortages and surpluses, and a gradual erosion of prosperity.

Germany’s “social-ecological market economy” is a textbook illustration of this dynamic. The state declares hydrogen and other favored technologies to be the “future,” pours billions into subsidies, and attempts to construct markets by decree. Yet even an official body like the Federal Audit Office now describes this as a “planned economy approach” and doubts that the government will reach its own goals. In all likelihood, Germany is about to confirm once again what Mises showed in theory a century ago: planned economies do not deliver their promised outcomes. Instead, they generate rising costs, failing projects, and increasing chaos—while making society poorer in the process.

Authored by Andrew Moran via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The conflict in Iran could have consequences for international trade that extend beyond oil and gas.

It has been less than a week since the start of the U.S.–Israeli operations in Iran, and oil tanker traffic in the Strait of Hormuz—a key global chokepoint for energy shipments—has come to a screeching halt. Approximately 200 oil tankers have been stranded in the Gulf, according to data from Lloyd’s List Intelligence.

The strait handles an estimated 20 million barrels of crude oil and petroleum products per day, with a majority being directed to Asia.

While Tehran has not officially shuttered the narrow waterway, it has been effectively closed by Western insurers, which have canceled coverage or raised risk premiums.

It is not only maritime commerce and energy that are being adversely affected by the conflict.

Planes carrying air cargo out of the Middle East have been grounded. Other vessels have started detouring around Africa’s Cape of Good Hope, a move that adds days and raises fuel costs to a trip.

The longer the war drags on, the greater the odds that it could bleed into the broader global supply chain, whether for consumer goods or construction equipment.

Key construction and manufacturing materials such as cement, concrete, and sand are produced across the Middle East. Seven percent of the global aluminum supply flows through the strait. Pharmaceuticals manufactured in India or natural-gas-based products produced in Saudi Arabia traverse the region.

A prolonged conflict in Iran would cause delays and potentially product shortages, leading to higher production and transportation costs.

The Containerized Freight Index has already climbed by more than 5 percent in the past month. In the liquefied natural gas market, shipping rates have increased by 650 percent to $300,000 per day, according to shipbroker Fearnleys.

These developments could revive broad-based price pressures at a time when aggregate inflation levels have been slowing despite the United States’ global tariffs.

The annual inflation rate in the United States is running at 2.4 percent.

Mitigating High Energy Prices

The administration has sought to thaw frozen trade and stabilize global energy markets by offering naval escorts and political risk insurance guarantees—coverage that protects companies against financial losses caused by conflict and hostile geopolitical environments.

It is a welcomed step, but industry players are still cautious, according to Stamatis Tsantanis, CEO and chairman of Seanergy Maritime.

“Shipowners and operators will need to see a clear, secure corridor established before confidence fully returns,” Tsantanis said in a note emailed to The Epoch Times.

“The priority for the industry is not just moving cargo, but protecting the lives of seafarers, the value of vessels, and avoiding what could become a major environmental disaster if a tanker were seriously hit in such a narrow and sensitive waterway.”

Uncertainty about the vital artery has contributed to this week’s spike in energy prices.

Crude oil prices are still surging, with a barrel of West Texas Intermediate approaching $80 on the New York Mercantile Exchange. Brent, an international benchmark for oil prices, is inching closer to $85 per barrel.

Natural gas has edged up to about $3 per million British thermal units. Gasoline prices and heating oil futures have risen by 9 percent and 37 percent, respectively, over the past week.

Even with security guarantees or an end to the conflict, restoring trade flows would still take time.

“Shipping has always adapted to geopolitical tensions, but restoring normal flows through Hormuz will depend on credible security arrangements that give crews, owners, and insurers the confidence that transit through the strait is genuinely safe,” Tsantanis said.

‘Magnitude of the Drag’

For now, market watchers are mainly concerned about the effects of rising energy costs on near-term inflation and growth prospects—and the Federal Reserve’s policy strategies.

“A brief spike in oil prices would have little lasting effect on inflation. Energy prices would need to be sustained higher over weeks or months before we see it push CPI meaningfully higher,” David Rees, global head of economics at Schroders, said in a March 3 note.

“However, higher sustained energy inflation would squeeze real incomes, weigh on growth, and raise doubts about whether central banks, such as the U.S. Federal Reserve, can continue easing monetary policy.”

The rule of thumb is that every $10 jump in oil prices shaves off 0.1 percentage point from gross domestic product growth and increases inflation by 0.2 percentage points.

Additionally, rising oil prices tend to have a lag effect in the broader economy, according to Sarah Wolfe, a strategist at Morgan Stanley Wealth Management. Consumption generally begins to slow two to three months after a price shock and remains tepid for five to six months.

“The magnitude of the drag depends on the duration and persistence of higher energy prices,” she said in a March 4 note.

The situation, meanwhile, could force the Federal Reserve and other central banks to reconsider easing efforts.

The Fed, facing an energy supply shock, is likely to keep interest rates on hold as officials assess the situation and watch the incoming data.

At a March 3 Bloomberg event, Minneapolis Fed President Neel Kashkari said the conflict has ignited uncertainty surrounding the outlook for policy and the economy.

“The question I think that we are wrestling with, and markets are wrestling with, is, how long is this going to ​last? How bad is it going to get? Is it going to look more like Russia–Ukraine, or is it going to look more like Hamas attacking Israel, ​and that’s going to have effects on monetary policy,” Kashkari said.

These conflicts can make the inflationary trajectory harder to predict, he said.

Futures market data indicate that traders have started pushing out the first quarter-point rate cut of 2026 to September, even as Fed Chair Jerome Powell’s term expires in May and the president’s new pick takes over the job.

But the brief Iran–Israel war in June 2025 underscored how resilient the global economy has become to Middle East shocks. Oil spiked above $82 a barrel after the United States and Israel struck Iranian nuclear sites, but prices slid back below $70 within months. Growth and inflation in the United States and other major economies were hardly impacted.

Authored by Autumn Spredemann via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Artificial intelligence (AI) has become a critical threshold that online job seekers must cross, but the technology has presented a unique challenge.

As employers increasingly lean on AI systems to screen, schedule, and evaluate candidates, applicants must learn how to get past the algorithm before reaching human consideration.

More hiring and recruiting professionals are using applicant tracking systems, many of which involve generative AI, according to a report from the International Research Journal on Advanced Engineering Hub. At a glance, these systems help overwhelmed employers sort and prioritize resumes, schedule interviews, and more.

Last year, nearly 98 percent of Fortune 500 companies used some type of applicant tracking systems, according to a Jobscan analysis. Research from Select Software Reviews found that 70 percent of large companies are using an applicant tracking systems, as well as 20 percent of small- to mid-sized businesses.

This has given rise to fears that resumes are being filtered out without any human judgment. Critics have brushed aside these concerns as myth or a misunderstanding of how an applicant tracking systems works, according to findings from Enhancv.

However, an EDLIGO analysis of 1,000 resumes from qualified candidates across multiple industries showed 43 percent of applicants were rejected for reasons that had nothing to do with their skills. The independent study ran selected, verified resumes through the top three applicant tracking systems platforms: Workday, Taleo, and Greenhouse. The 43 percent rejection rate was due to “formatting, parsing, or arbitrary filter failures.”

People who work in hiring say job seekers’ fears of an applicant tracking systems rejecting their resume aren’t unfounded.

“This isn’t just a claim; it is the fundamental reality of modern hiring,” Gloria Espina, founder of Recruitment Gal, told The Epoch Times.

Espina said job hunting has become a type of “algorithmic audition” that was born out of necessity.

“The ‘easy apply’ button has effectively broken the top of the hiring funnel. It turned applying for a job into a mindless, low-friction swipe,” she said. “As a result, recruiters are flooded with thousands of applications that aren’t even remotely suitable, which completely buries the highly qualified candidates under a mountain of digital noise.”

Espina acknowledged that an applicant tracking system is an essential gatekeeper to manage applicant chaos, but it’s also a rigid one.

“Most legacy systems are painfully literal. They scan for keywords but completely fail to identify entities or context. An algorithm might check the box for the word ‘leadership,’ but it misses the contextual power of ‘scaled a remote team across three time zones during a merger,’” she said. “Context is where the actual value of a candidate lives, but our systems are still grading them on a basic vocabulary test.”

Digital Tripwire

The problem of software rejecting a job applicant without human consideration isn’t a new one.

A 2021 Harvard Business School study found that 88 percent of job candidates were rejected by an applicant tracking system because their resumes didn’t match the posted criteria closely enough. However, the study authors stated the same applicants were capable of performing the necessary tasks at a “high level” with proper training.

And therein lies the nuance. The sheer volume of job applicants for most posted openings has created the algorithmic audition.

“Many candidates likely don’t realize how many applications the average job posting receives. We often receive 300 [to] 500 applications within a week of posting a mid-level professional role, and using an ATS [applicant tracking system] helps us sort them by relevance and prioritize the queue,” Matt Erhard, managing partner at Summit Search Group, told The Epoch Times.

Erhard said the issue isn’t software. He said the real problem is that many resumes are “unclear, generic, or misaligned with the role,” which makes it challenging for a reviewer to identify candidates who are a good fit.

Alex Chepovoi, CEO of the job search platform Global Work AI, said the first thing to read your resume “is an algorithm.”

“Applicant tracking systems scan, filter, and reject resumes in seconds based on keywords, education, and experience specifics, and sometimes even demographic indicators,” Chepovoi told The Epoch Times.

He said to pass the “AI gate” and catch the attention of an employer, a savvy job hunter must first optimize their resume for skills.

“Make sure your experience section clearly reflects the keywords used in the job description. If the vacancy says ‘project management,’ don’t just say ‘led initiatives,’ say project management,” he said.

Another recommendation Chepovoi offered was minimizing personal data on the resume.

“Age, exact address, even gender indicators can unintentionally trigger filters. Focus on professional value.”

Gregg Podalsky, president of American Recruiting & Consulting Group, said candidates should focus on creating tailored resumes that match the job description.

“The real issue is alignment. If a resume does not clearly reflect the skills and requirements outlined in the job description, it may rank lower and never get serious consideration. That is not a flaw in the technology; it is a mismatch in presentation,” Podalsky told The Epoch Times.

He noted it’s critical to mirror the language of the job description where appropriate, clearly list measurable accomplishments, and make skills easy to identify.

“Avoid overly creative formats that [applicant tracking] systems cannot parse properly. Clarity, structure, and relevance matter more than design,” Podalsky said.

Getting past the initial AI gatekeeper and not ending up at the bottom of a list is a challenge that’s recognized across the board. In January, the job search engine Indeed published a list of best practices for “beating” an applicant tracking systems, which includes things like avoiding acronyms, adding a skills section, using relevant keywords, and submitting the correct file type.

In the EDLIGO study, 23 percent of resumes were rejected due to the inability to read the file, and another 12 percent were declined due to formatting issues.

The Details

Sleek, clever formatting can actually do more harm than good when it comes to getting your resume in front of an actual person.

“To survive the filter but stand out to the human on the other side, you must anchor those keywords to measurable outcomes,” Espina said.

“Eliminate the fluff, the generic soft skills, and the complex formatting. Nobody cares that you are a ‘highly motivated team player.’ Take out the objective statements, the heavy graphics, and the columns. Those break in the [applicant tracking system].”

Podalsky said, “In 2026, strong resumes will focus on impact. Quantifiable results, specific tools used, and clear examples of problem-solving stand out.”

He agreed job seekers should eliminate vague phrases like “team player” or “results-driven” and replace them with evidence.

“Authenticity, relevance, and measurable contribution will always outperform keyword stuffing or AI-polished fluff,” he said.

Erhard concurred, saying, “Hiring managers today want evidence of impact. Candidates should add quantified achievement, including the scope, metrics, and outcomes.”

As an example, Erhard said, “led a team of eight and reduced project delivery times by 20 percent,” was better than just listing responsibilities on a resume.

Read the rest here…

Authored by Debra Heine via American Greatness,

A Minnesota state employee who vandalized six Tesla vehicles last year, causing up to $21,000 in damage, received no jailtime and just a single-day suspension from his job, state records show.

Dylan Adams, an employee with the Minnesota Department of Human Services (DHS), was caught on Tesla security cameras keying the vehicles in March and early April 2025, amid a rash of anti-Tesla vandalism and firebomb attacks throughout the nation.

The anti-Tesla attacks coincided with nationwide “Tesla Takedown” demonstrations organized by ActBlue-funded groups to agitate against Tesla CEO Elon Musk’s role in the Trump administration as the head of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).

As the Fiscal Policy Analyst and Compliance Lead on DHS’s Program Integrity Team, Adams is reportedly responsible for preventing  waste, fraud and abuse in public benefit programs in a state that has recently seen an estimated $300 million in child nutrition funds and $9 billion in Medicaid funds lost to waste, fraud, and abuse.

According to a report on the Minnesota DHS investigation, Adams indicated that he was “concerned” about Musk making a “Nazi salute” during a 2024 campaign event, a malicious smear propagated by Democrats and their allies in the media.

He also admitted that he vandalized the Teslas “in hopes the owners would disassociate themselves from Elon Musk and Tesla.”

Adams told investigators he was “on a break” or “out sick” during the times he was out keying Tesla vehicles, however Adams’ state time card, obtained by Alpha News, shows he logged a full eight-hour workday during the time period he was committing some of the crimes.

Regardless, he was “punished” with just an unpaid, one-day suspension on Thursday, Jan. 22, 2026.

“You are reminded that you are expected to comply with all Enterprise and Agency policies and fulfill your responsibility of maintaining public trust; failure to do so could result in further disciplinary action up to and including termination of your employment,” a letter sent to Adams on Jan. 20 reads.

Adams was informed that he had the right to appeal the day off, but there is no indication that he objected to the minor slap on the wrist.

Minnesota House Republican Leader Harry Niska said:

“the message is clear: if you belong to a certain class of state employees, Gov. Walz and Minnesota Democrats will protect you.”

Soros-backed Hennepin County Attorney Mary Moriarty (D.) announced last year that the vandal would not be charged with a crime and would instead opt for a “diversion program” for him.

“We offered diversion as we often do with property damage cases when the person has no record,” Moriarty’s spokesman said.

“Mr. Adams will have to complete the requirements of the program. He will also have to pay every penny in restitution to the victims. If he does not meet those requirements, we will proceed through the criminal legal system process.”

Minneapolis Police Chief Brian O’Hara expressed frustration with the decision not to pursue felony charges, noting the significant damage and impact on multiple victims.

“The Minneapolis Police Department did its job. It identified and investigated a crime trend, identified, and arrested a suspect, and presented a case file to the Hennepin County Attorney Office for consideration of charges,” O’Hara said in a statement to media outlets last April.

“This case impacted at least six different victims and totaled over $20,000 in damages. Any frustration related to the charging decision of the Hennepin County Attorney should be directed solely at her office. Our investigators are always frustrated when the cases they poured their hearts into are declined. In my experience, the victims in these cases often feel the same.”

California, long a leader in aggressive renewable energy mandates, is showing early signs of softening its decades-old ban on new nuclear power. Bloomberg reported cracks are appearing in the state’s 1976 moratorium, driven by surging electricity demand from AI data centers and the challenge of hitting absurd climate targets like 90% clean electricity by 2035 and 100% by 2045.

At the center of the development is Assembly Bill 2647, introduced last month by Democratic Assembly Member Lisa Calderon with Republican co-sponsors. The legislation would exempt “advanced nuclear reactors”, defined as systems licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission since 2005, from the state’s long-standing prohibition. Calderon stated the bill keeps nuclear “on the table” as an essential tool for reliable, low-carbon power.

The move aligns with a broader U.S. resurgence in nuclear interest, but in California it comes against a backdrop of chronic grid strain.

The state has already leaned on its sole remaining nuclear facility, Diablo Canyon, to avoid worse outcomes. In 2022/23, Governor Gavin Newsom pushed through lawsuits for an extension of the plant’s operations past its original 2025 closure date after warnings of rolling blackouts. It was a glaring admission that electric grids are far from being sustainable with just wind and sunlight. 

PG&E Launches $73B California Grid Plan To Feed Starving AI https://t.co/tsmtfalX1K

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) September 30, 2025

Just last week, Diablo Canyon cleared its final state permitting hurdles, paving the way for continued operation through at least 2030 and potentially longer pending federal relicensing.

We’ve chronicled these pressures for years. As far back as 2023 we detailed the legal battles surrounding Diablo Canyon’s then-planned shutdown. Last year, we also noted Newsom’s clean-energy claims and how extensions of both Diablo Canyon and natural-gas plants were critical to preventing blackouts during peak summer demand.

Even with massive investments in solar, wind, and batteries, California’s grid has repeatedly flirted with instability, especially when intermittent renewables fall short during heat waves or evening ramps. The AI boom has only accelerated the problem; data centers are projected to drive unprecedented load growth nationwide, and California utilities are scrambling to keep pace.

The bill does not mandate new reactors or repeal the moratorium outright. It simply removes a regulatory barrier rooted in 1950s-era technology concerns and unresolved federal waste-storage issues. Whether it passes and whether utilities or tech firms actually pursue advanced nuclear projects remains to be seen. 

Authored by Andrew Korybko,

The “politically inconvenient” truth is that the US is unilaterally reshaping the world order in a bid to restore unipolarity, and regardless of one’s opinion about this, it’s objectively achieved some tangible progress as of late.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bennett announced that Indian refiners had just been provided with a 30-day waiver to purchase Russian oil, but only if it’s that which is already stranded at sea, thus ensuring “no significant financial benefit to the Russian government”. The stated purpose is “To enable oil to keep flowing into the global market” due to disruptions around the Strait of Hormuz caused by the Third Gulf War, which the US initiated as part of its grand strategy against China as explained here.

Depriving China of the 13.4% of its oil imports that it received from Iran last year is designed to give the US enormous leverage ahead of Trump’s upcoming trip at month’s end with the hope of then coercing the People’s Republic into agreeing to a lopsided trade deal for derailing its superpower rise. It’s beyond the scope of this analysis to critique that strategy, but the point in referencing it is to draw attention to how India could have suffered collateral damage had the US not temporarily waived its sanctions.

After all, Trump threatened last month to reimpose his punitive 25% tariffs on India for these purchases if they’re resumed after claiming that Modi agreed to zero them out as part of the Indo-US trade deal, which India denied. Nevertheless, India did indeed reduce its imports under what top Russian expert Fyodor Lukyanov described as “US pressure”, though he also clarified that this doesn’t mean that India isn’t a sovereign state despite the US unofficially exerting influence over its energy security.

In his words, “India’s understanding (of sovereignty), like that of many other states, is different (than Russia’s). Sovereignty does not necessarily mean refusing to bend under pressure; it means finding ways to realize one’s interests under less-than-ideal conditions…This is the practical reality of what is often called a multipolar world…look after your own first.”

This insight frames the rest of Bennett’s announcement about how “we fully anticipate that New Delhi will ramp up purchases of U.S. oil”.

Trump 2.0 weaponized tariffs to re-engineer India’s energy ties in order to place more long-term financial pressure on Russia while reaping more profits for US companies. Even though the Supreme Court ruled that some of its tariffs were unconstitutional, it was explained here how that only slightly complicates Trump 2.0’s foreign policy, while this analysis here argued that India is unlikely to defy Trump on Russian oil. Simply put, it doesn’t want to face Trump’s wrath no matter what form it takes, which is reasonable.

Be that as it may, it would be inaccurate to describe India as a US vassal in spite of the newfound influence that the US now wields over its energy security since “India’s New Multi-Alignment Trend Prioritizes Middle Powers For Tri-Multipolarity Purposes”. In simple English, India’s partnerships with similarly positioned countries in the emerging world order are aimed at collectively balancing the influence of the American and Chinese superpowers therein, thus preserving some of their sovereignty.

The “politically inconvenient” truth is that the US is unilaterally reshaping the world order in a bid to restore unipolarity, and regardless of one’s opinion about this, it’s objectively achieved some tangible progress as of late. The new world order that it envisages has India playing a prominent geo-economic and geopolitical role, especially vis-à-vis China, ergo why it temporarily waived the sanctions on Russian oil purchases in order to avoid India sliding into turmoil and possibly offsetting this scenario if it didn’t.

Authored by James Howard Kunstler,

You probably wonder what the end of this war will look like. It won’t look like V-J Day in Times Square, 1945, with sailors kissing girls they met five seconds ago. Our country is way too divided and disturbed with politically-inflected mental illness for love to bloom in the streets like it did then. If you happen to catch the glum crew on CNN you will detect that they really want this operation to fail because, you know, Trump.

The war will be over when Iran loses the ability to spray missiles and drones all over the place — and notice how they are pouring it on the Emirate states, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq, and even Azerbaijan, for Gawdsake, turning would-be bystanders into pissed-off additional enemies they need like a hole in the head.

At some point they will run out of ordnance, or the will to roll them out of the supposed 10,000 bat caves their weapons are stashed in. Our side apparently has an uncanny knack for seeing the launchers creep into daylight and efficiently blowing them up. Creates a disincentive to even think about launching. Of course, Iran might have some spectacular last-ditch thingie they can unleash to horrify the world — perhaps a “dirty” bomb that uses the 460 kilos of 60-percent enriched uranium they bragged about at one of the last negotiation sessions before the war with Witkoff and Kushner. Standing by on that.

But, at some point a week or so hence, a stillness will fall upon the earth and sky above Iran, and that will be all she wrote for sheer havoc. Victory will not look much like anything. Just that stillness. The body politic in Iran is another matter. Expect awful turmoil. Iran’s command structure is shattered. Officials don’t dare pick a room in some building to meet in. The Internet is down and most communication with it. Nobody knows who is really in charge, and nobody may be in charge, not for quite a long time to come.

Let’s hope we have the patience to let the Iranians sort out their own governing structure, and that it will be made up of people who are not insane, not fanatics of the martyrdom cult that has ruled the place for fifty years. It’s probably not part of the US plan to slaughter the Revolutionary Guard, or Sepah, the chief apparatus of despotic control in the country. Or the Basij, (Sâzmân-e Basij-e Mostaz’afin, which means “Organization for the Mobilization of the Oppressed”), an auxiliary volunteer paramilitary militia that acts as the “morality police” and cracks down on dissent. Hundreds of thousands are employed by these groups.

You might imagine circumstances in which the members of those dastardly outfits decide to peel away from them, sensing a loss of legitimacy and danger in remaining on-board. Surely, a lot of Iranians will have blood in their eyes, looking for scores to settle, just as the people took revenge on members of the Shah’s secret police, the Savak, after the 1979 Islamic Revolution. Even now with the bombs still falling in Tehran (perhaps even because of them), many ordinary Iranians are dancing in the streets. You must suppose there is massive opposition to the regime. But first, chaos.

Why would we feel any necessity to put “boots on the ground” in there? Why expose American troops to the factional fighting that is apt to break out, as it did in Iraq? Did we not learn the lessons of Fallujah? Wouldn’t it be enough that Iran just loses its ability to fire weapons at anyone? Loses its ability to mess with shipping in the Persian Gulf? And loses its ability to foment mischief in other countries, including any ideological influence it might still have, or any financial mojo for sponsoring terrorism? Can we not just stand by and let the Iranians figure out their own future?

Try imagining a peaceful Iran not bent on exporting Jihad (just like you might imagine a peaceful Ukraine, not making itself a problem for the rest of the world). Forgive the cliché, but Iran (a.k.a. Persia), is an old and durable culture, with a highly educated population, one of the world’s largest oil-and-gas reserves, and plenty of other resources. Iran could be somebody. It doesn’t have to be a bum with a one-way ticket to Palookaville.

As for our own country, too many people here are busy wolfing down the black pills with their Adderall and their Starbucks iced lavender cream chai. It’s actually possible that there is a satisfactory outcome to this Iran operation. Would that disappoint you — as it apparently disappoints the glum crew at CNN? As with Iran, it doesn’t pay to be insane, and something close to half of America is insane. That perturbation is mostly lodged in the American Left these days, the Democratic Party, devoted to a long list of ideas and propositions at odds with reality and locked into a strange willful hysteria that regards any kind of good faith as poison. That is exactly why we can’t have clean elections. How about fixing that?

Yesterday, when discussing the stunning development that Russia would be granted a one-month license to sell (formerly) sanctioned oil to india while the Straits of Hormuz are blocked, we said that this step is just the start, and precited “unlimited extensions” in the future. We had to wait less than 24 hours for this to come true.

Speaking to Fox Business, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said the US may lift sanctions on further Russian oil supply after a move Thursday to give Indian refiners the green light to purchase crude from the nation.

“Treasury agreed to let our allies in India start buying Russian oil that was already on the water,” Bessent said, explaining that “to ease the temporary gap of oil around the world, we have given them permission to accept the Russian oil. We may unsanction other Russian oil.”

NEW: U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent:

Due to the temporary global oil gap, we may also unsanction other Russian oil. pic.twitter.com/dvP6IIsLoQ

— Clash Report (@clashreport) March 6, 2026

Bessent said there’s “hundreds of millions of sanctioned barrels of crude on the water now and in essence, by unsanctioning them, Treasury can create supply,” he said, quoting verbatim what we said on February 19.

Cushing drained at fastest pace since June while hundreds of millions of barrels are stuck at sea. Vitol will make a trillion $ this year.

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) February 19, 2026

He was referring to this chart:

Crude prices surged past $90 a barrel on Friday, rising to the highest level since 2023, as fighting in the region kept tankers away from the Strait of Hormuz, with some traders and energy executives warning that prices could climb to more than $100 per barrel if the conflict continues and local producers are forced to shut in production.

Bessent echoed other officials in anticipating the US efforts to defeat Iran will prove victorious. “Our campaign has been overwhelming,” he said. “They’re trying to create economic chaos, and I don’t think they’re going to be able to do it.” Meanwhile, NBC reported citing anonymous officials, that “Trump has privately shown serious interest in U.S. ground troops in Iran.”

“We’ve considered all this,” Bessent said. “This is in the president’s calculus, and things are proceeding as planned.”

It’s unclear if the president’s calculus also accounts for $3.80 gas at the pump which is what the surge in oil prices will translate to unless there is a quick resolution to the Iran crisis.

Authored by Lawrence Wilson via The Epoch Times,

Obamacare had problems even before it launched in 2014. Marketplace websites were glitchy during the open enrollment period, frustrating many would-be customers.

Sweeping changes ushered in by the Affordable Care Act, the law creating Obamacare, all but guaranteed that premiums would increase—which they did by 23 percent in the program’s first year.

Even so, public opinion swung in favor of Obamacare starting in 2017 and remains positive, according to KFF Health Tracking polls.

More than 24 million people were insured through the program by 2025.

And insurers learned to thrive under the new rules, more than doubling annual revenue to $1.1 trillion and consistently generating a profit between 2014 and 2024.

Problems do persist, however.

Premiums have more than doubled over 12 years. Some consumers have only a few plans to choose from. And flaws in the program’s design continue to waste taxpayer dollars.

Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have proposed solutions, many with bipartisan support. Yet permanent reform remains elusive.

The reason may have less to do with the ideas themselves and more to do with the most persistent disagreement between Republicans and Democrats: the role of the federal government.

Here are three commonly proposed remedies for problems within Obamacare, and why those problems remain.

1. Increase Plan Options

Of the more than 1,100 health insurers doing business in the United States, about 10, on average, offer plans through Obamacare in each state.

About 5 percent of Obamacare users have only one or two insurers to choose from.

“Obamacare created a system that left American families with fewer choices,” said Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.), who proposed legislation to improve Obamacare in 2025.

Scott’s proposal would have allowed consumers to buy health insurance across state lines, which is now prohibited by most states with limited exceptions.

Five years ago, Sens. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) and Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) proposed allowing more choice by allowing consumers to opt into Medicare in counties where fewer than three insurers offered Obamacare plans. That plan, called Medicare X, later expanded to other counties with high-cost plans and few options.

Bennet and Kaine said the plan would both reduce costs and offer health coverage to people with few options. The plan was introduced in 2021 and again last year.

Others have suggested broadening the availability of catastrophic plans, which have low premiums but high deductibles.

That proposal and Scott’s proposal had been suggested by Democrats in 2017.

Still others have proposed allowing insurers to offer short-term health insurance plans through Obamacare. These three-month to six-month plans are popular with people between jobs or in a waiting period for employer-sponsored insurance.

“Short-term plans typically offer far lower premiums, substantially broader provider networks, and greater overall value for many middle-class families,” Brian Blase, president of Paragon Health Institute, said.

None of these ideas received a vote in Congress.

Conservatives were skeptical of the Medicare X proposal, seeing it as a step toward socialized medicine.

“​​Democrats claim that they just want to offer another health insurance choice. But Medicare X would simply nudge us along toward the Democrats’ endgame: a complete government takeover of the health insurance system,” Sally C. Pipes, president and CEO of Pacific Research Institute, wrote on the think tank’s website in 2024.

Left-leaning politicians and analysts have been skeptical of any plan that would offer what they see as inferior health coverage through Obamacare, including short-term insurance and catastrophic plans.

“Short-term coverage is not community-rated (that is, people can be charged more based on their health status, gender, or other factors) and it typically does not cover preexisting conditions,” Mark A. Hall and Michael J. McCue wrote in a 2022 article for The Commonwealth Fund.

2. Empower Consumers

Obamacare subsidizes health insurance for people earning between 100 percent and 400 percent of the federal poverty level. The subsidy comes in the form of an advanced tax credit. But the money is paid directly to insurance companies, not to the insured individuals.

President Donald Trump and several others have proposed making those funds available to consumers, which they say would increase choice and lower prices.

Trump’s plan, and some others, would provide funded Health Savings Accounts, which enrollees could use only for health expenses. That would include buying insurance, paying out-of-pocket expenses, or buying health care directly from providers.

Scott made a similar proposal, as did Sens. Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) and Bill Cassidy (R-La.), and Sen. Roger Marshall (R-Kan.).

“Giving billions of taxpayer dollars to insurers is not working to reduce health insurance premiums for patients,” Crapo said in a statement announcing his plan in December 2025. “We need to give Americans more control over their own health care decisions.”

The Crapo–Cassidy plan failed to advance in the Senate last year. None of the other plans have even been put to a vote. Democrats have opposed the idea as a halfway measure that would undermine the value of Obamacare.

Health Savings Accounts are available only with insurance plans that have a high deductible, leading some analysts to conclude that they wouldn’t benefit people who have the most trouble affording health care.

“While healthier people could benefit … sicker people could be stuck with higher premiums or higher out-of-pocket health costs,” wrote Larry Levitt and Cynthia Cox of KFF.

Democrats objected also to other provisions of the Crapo–Cassidy plan, like verifying citizenship and immigration status before enrolling in coverage, and excluding abortion as an essential health benefit in Obamacare plans.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) called the plan “junk insurance.”

3. Fix Structural Problems

One feature of Obamacare was intended to lower premium prices but produced the opposite result.

Insurers must offer cost-sharing reductions to customers making less than 250 percent of the federal poverty level who choose a silver-level plan.

The cost-sharing reductions mean lower copays and deductibles, which helps low-income enrollees.

It also increases costs for insurers, so the federal government reimbursed them for the added expense.

But a federal judge ruled that those reimbursements were improper because Congress had never authorized funds for them through an appropriations bill. Cost-sharing reduction payments to insurers were discontinued in 2017. However, insurers are still required to offer the cost-sharing reductions.

To compensate, insurers raised premiums on the silver-level plans, a practice known as silver loading.

Because all premium subsidies are based on the cost of a silver-level plan, any increase to silver-plan premiums has the knock-on effect of increasing federal subsidies on every plan sold through Obamacare.

The overall effect added billions per year in costs to taxpayers.

Politicians from both major parties have called for Congress to fix the problem by appropriating money to pay for the cost-sharing reductions. That would save taxpayers nearly $37 billion and reduce premiums for the most common Obamacare plans by 11 percent, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Then-Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) and Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) proposed this and other program changes in 2017.

The bipartisan House Problem Solvers Caucus also pitched the idea that year.

Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks (R-Iowa) introduced a health care bill in 2025 that included funding for cost-sharing reductions.

The idea is included in Trump’s Great Healthcare Plan, released in January.

Despite having bipartisan support, this proposal appears to have been overshadowed by larger questions about Obamacare.

The 2017 Murray–Alexander plan was proposed at a time when many Republicans were intent on repealing and replacing Obamacare.

Trump opposed the proposal, according to then-White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders, because it did not go far enough to expand options and drive competition.

“This president certainly supports Republicans and Democrats coming to work together, but it’s not a full approach, and we need something to go a little bit further to get on board,” Sanders told reporters in 2017.

Democrats opposed the Miller–Meeks proposal because it did not extend the expiring enhanced tax credits for Obamacare, which was their primary legislative aim in late 2025.

Rep. Bobby Scott (D-Va.) urged colleagues to vote against the Miller-Meeks proposal, saying, “This plan does nothing to extend the [Obamacare] enhanced tax credits which are set to expire.

Jeremy Nighohossian of the Competitive Enterprise Institute suggested that some policy makers oppose funding the cost-sharing reductions precisely because the higher federal subsidies that result from silver loading serve a political end.

“Some may prefer the indirect subsidy increase because it raises the proportion of the population with insurance,” Nighohossian wrote in January on the think tank’s website.

The Impasse

The legislative impasse over improving Obamacare appears to arise from the basic difference in approach by Republicans and Democrats to health care financing.

Republicans generally favor deregulation and other marketplace reforms that they believe will increase competition and lower prices.

“As President Trump has said, he will make our health care system better by increasing transparency, promoting choice and competition, and expanding access to new affordable health care and insurance options,” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told The Poynter Institute in 2024.

Republican proposals for Obamacare generally follow that blueprint: add choices, improve competition, and allow the market to lower prices.

Democrats generally favor increased government intervention in the form of regulation and subsidization with the goal of ensuring access to health care services for everyone.

“Access to high-quality health care should be a right available to every single American,” House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) said in December 2025. “One of the ways we can make sure that we strive to achieve that principle is to extend the Affordable Care Act tax credits.”

Democrat-led bills to extend those credits failed to advance in both the House and Senate. Republican proposals to increase choice and competition also failed to advance.

Obamacare’s benchmark silver plan premiums for 2026 increased by about 26 percent.