Since the start of Operation Epic Fury against Iran, Israel has suffered some rare mass casualty events and major destruction of sectors of its cities, especially in Tel Aviv.

The official death toll stands at eleven civilians killed, and dozens wounded and injured; while Israel’s military just suffered two troop deaths in southern Lebanon.

The most devastating single incident was when nine people were killed in an Iranian missile strike on Beit Shemesh near Jerusalem on March 1, amid Iran’s retaliatory action.

On Monday there are widespread reports of another significant deadly missile impact in the heart of Israel. Local media reports that at least one person was killed and two others seriously wounded after an Iranian missile carrying a cluster warhead struck central Israel on Monday.

Already there’s been evidence of advanced hypersonic missiles sent on Israel, but cluster munitions by Iran may be something ‘new’ deployed in the war with Israel.

Times of Israel describes that the cluster warhead hit at least six locations across central Israel, including Yehud, Or Yehuda, Holon, and Bat Yam. One man was killed and another critically wounded at a construction site in Yehud, while a third man was seriously wounded in Or Yehuda, medical officials have said.

Large craters, and damage to area buildings and cars were witnessed at these scenes – and the diffusion of shrapnel. Shrapnel from these cluster attacks is among the most dangerous aspects to the warhead, which is banned across many countries according to international treaties.

“At the construction site, two men in their 40s were critically hurt by shrapnel, with one succumbing to his wounds, Magen David Adom said. The second man was taken to a hospital,” Times of Israel detailed.

Iran’s state broadcaster IRIB praised the strike, announcing that the country’s armed forces launched its “first wave of missiles under Mojtaba Khamenei towards occupied territories” – in reference to the newly appointed leader chosen Sunday to succeed his father, Ali Khamenei.

Iranian cluster munition in central Israel, part of a fresh wave of ballistic missile attacks launched by Iran in retaliation amid the escalating U.S.-Iran-Israel conflict. pic.twitter.com/cLtVBI2vbV

— NextMinute News (@nextminutenews7) March 9, 2026

Some open source analysts have pointed out that cluster bombs have been used since nearly the start of the war – but Monday’s incident appears the first instance resulting in serious casualties.

Authored by George Ford Smith via the Mises Institute,

Artificial intelligence is rapidly becoming one of the most capital-intensive industries in history. Consider: Semiconductor fabrication plants cost tens of billions of dollars. Massive data centers consume extraordinary amounts of electricity, sending power bills soaring. Specialized engineering talent commands premium wages. (Although the median salary for an AI professional is $160K annually, the top 1 percent of AI researchers receive compensation packages exceeding $1 million). Global supply chains must coordinate rare materials, precision manufacturing, and complex infrastructure.

Yet discussions about artificial intelligence almost never address the most important economic variable shaping its development: money.

From an Austrian perspective, the future of artificial intelligence ties directly to the monetary system that finances it. Whether AI produces sustainable prosperity or another boom-bust cycle depends less on algorithms than on interest rates.

As we’ve seen throughout history, interest rates in a fractional-reserve banking system trend ever lower when a new technology gets underway. This generates the illusion of prosperity called a boom, followed inevitably by a bust.

As a reminder of what is meant by a “bust,” keep in mind the figure $16.2 trillion—“The total net worth American households lost between 2007 and 2009 of the Great Recession.”

Artificial intelligence is best understood economically as a higher-order capital good—a tool that enhances the productivity of human performance. Like machinery during the Industrial Revolution or computers in the late twentieth century, AI operates within a time-structured production process involving multiple stages before consumer goods emerge. Here’s how ChatGPT works as a consumer good, for example, providing an indispensable research tool for millions.

Nobel laureate F.A. Hayek emphasized that production requires coordination of dispersed knowledge across time. Interest rates serve as the critical signal aligning savings with investment. When that signal is distorted, the capital structure becomes misaligned.

Artificial intelligence offers super-advanced intellectual performance, but as a capital good is still subject to interest rate signals. Economically, under our central bank fiat system, distorted interest rates intensifies capital misalignment.

The Neglected Relevance of the Monetary System

The current AI boom is unfolding after more than a decade of unprecedented monetary expansion. Following the 2008 financial crisis—and again after 2020—the Federal Reserve expanded its balance sheet dramatically while maintaining near-zero interest rates for extended periods. The Fed has been unwinding since its April 2022 peak, but is still 59 percent above pre-pandemic levels.

In the world of Federal Reserve economics, cheap credit is a necessary fuel for economic development. But as Mises warned,

What induces an entrepreneur to embark upon definite projects is neither high prices nor low prices as such, but a discrepancy between the costs of production, inclusive of interest on the capital required, and the anticipated prices of the products. A lowering of the gross market rate of interest as brought about by credit expansion always has the effect of making some projects appear profitable which did not appear so before. (emphasis added)

When the Fed artificially suppresses interest rates, entrepreneurs undertake projects that appear profitable but cannot be sustained once monetary conditions change. This is the core of Austrian business cycle theory: Credit expansion causes malinvestment.

Artificial intelligence investment is particularly vulnerable to this dynamic because it involves long time horizons, uncertain demand, and enormous upfront capital requirements.

Warning Signs of Malinvestment

Several familiar signals are already visible:

• Massive capital flows into AI startups with uncertain revenue models, with AI capturing “close to 50% of all global funding in 2025, up from 34 percent in 2024.”
• Extraordinary valuations driven by future expectations rather than present earnings
• Rapid expansion of data center infrastructure ahead of proven demand, with global capacity expected to double by 2030
• Energy investment justified primarily by projected AI growth

Technological revolutions often coincide with speculative manias. The railroad booms of the nineteenth century, the stock market excesses of the 1920s, the dot-com bubble of the 1990s, and the housing boom before 2008 all followed this pattern. In each case, the technology survived, while the speculative capital structure collapsed. Artificial intelligence may follow a similar trajectory if monetary conditions continue to distort investment signals. As long as money is under monopoly control of political appointees instead of the free market, distortion is guaranteed.

Gold historically constrained credit expansion because banks could not create unlimited claims without risking the wrath of defrauded depositors. Interest rates reflected real savings more accurately, and investment discipline was stronger.

Under a monetary system anchored by market forces rather than quarreling politicians, artificial intelligence would develop in a manner more closely aligned with genuine demand and less vulnerable to speculative collapse.

Conclusion

Artificial intelligence is likely to become the most transformative technology in history, but under the auspices of a money-printing counterfeiter such as the Federal Reserve it’s certain to create massive economic problems. The real threat is artificial credit, not artificial intelligence.

People rightfully fear losing their jobs. What actually threatens workers, though, is not automation but monetary distortion. When credit expansion drives speculative booms, capital is misdirected into unsustainable ventures. When the correction arrives, workers suffer the consequences of decisions made far above them. And they tend to direct their anger at the market, rather than the politically-influenced decision makers.

Ron Paul was right. We need to end the Fed and end the property rights violations of fractional reserve banking.

Authored by Victoria Freedman via The EPoch Times,

U.S. President Donald Trump on March 8 said the decision on when to end the Iran War will be a mutual one that he will make with input from Israel.

“I think it’s mutual … a little bit. We’ve been talking. I’ll make a decision at the right time, but everything’s going to be taken into account,” Trump told The Times of Israel in a telephone interview.

Asked whether he thought it would be necessary for Israel to continue their campaign even after the United States decides to stop its airstrikes, the U.S. president said, “I don’t think it’s going to be necessary.”

Trump also said that Iran was “going to destroy Israel and everything else around it,” adding, “we’ve worked together [with Israel]. We’ve destroyed a country that wanted to destroy Israel.”

On Feb. 28, the United States and Israel jointly launched an attack on Iran, with the Islamic Republic’s leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, being killed in the first salvo of the war.

On March 9, the Iranian regime chose Mojtaba Khamenei, the son of Ali Khamenei, as the next leader.

Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz said in a March 4 post on X that whoever is appointed to replace the deceased Iranian leader “will be an unequivocal target for elimination.”

“[Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu] and I have instructed the [Israel Defense Forces] to prepare and act by all means to carry out the mission as an integral part of the objectives of Operation ‘Lion’s Roar,’” Katz said, using Israel’s term for the military offensive against Iran and its proxies.

Trump similarly told ABC News on March 8 that Iran’s next leader is “not going to last long” if he does not get approval from the United States.

No Expansion of Objectives

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said on March 6 that Washington expects Operation Epic Fury “to last four to six weeks” to achieve its objectives, “and we are well on our way to achieving those objectives.”

Leavitt told reporters during a press briefing outside the White House that, during the operation to date, more than 30 Iranian vessels and ships have been sunk and that the Iranian navy has “been deemed combat ineffective.”

She added that the United States has taken out the ballistic missile threat posed by Iran, and that in six days since the war started, “retaliatory ballistic missile strikes from Iran are now down 90 percent.”

“Ultimately, the president has made it very clear: He wants to take out the threat of Iran to the United States, and Operation Epic Fury as well on its way to doing that.”

Operation Epic Fury is the name for the United States’s offensive against Iran.

Last week, the Pentagon said there is no expansion of military objectives in Iran and that the operation was moving onto its next phase.

Adm. Brad Cooper, the head of U.S. Central Command, said on March 5 during a news briefing at U.S. Central Command headquarters in Tampa, Florida, that the next objective is to destroy Iran’s ballistic missile industrial base.

“We’re not just hitting what they have—we’re destroying their ability to rebuild,” Cooper said. “As we transition to the next phase of this operation, we will systemically dismantle Iran’s missile production capability for the future, and that’s absolutely in progress.”

Within the opening days of the Iran-US-Israel war, the State Department urged Americans across 14 countries in the Middle East region to urgently depart. There’s since been an ongoing US government facilitated evacuation effort. Private tour groups have also been coordinating to get people out.

For example, stranded tourists in Israel have rushed south, across the Egyptian border on buses, where they can safely arrange flights from Cairo. For the first time of the war, Turkey has just been added to the list – a rarity given it has long been viewed as a place of stability and is a prime tourist destination. 

But the new State Department travel advisory has yet to be extended over the whole of the country, instead Americans are being warned not to visit southeast Turkey and for anyone currently there to depart immediately.

It warns of the potential terrorism, armed conflict, and arbitrary detentions, according to the advisory – at a moment bombs between Iran, Israel, the US and Gulf countries continue to fly. And importantly, a staff draw down:

Washington has advised non-essential staff to leave its consulate near the southern Turkish city of Adana near a key NATO base and ordered US citizens to leave “southeast Turkey,” the US embassy to Ankara said Monday.

There are American troops at several bases in Turkey, particularly at NATO’s major Incirlik air base, near Adana

“On March 9, 2026, the Department of State ordered non-emergency US government employees and US government employee family members to leave Consulate General Adana due to the safety risks,” the US embassy said on X.

It further declared that “Americans in southeast Turkey are strongly encouraged to depart now.”

Last week saw a couple of very serious developments which impact Turkey. First, a ballistic missile from Iran flew over the large Asia minor country and was intercepted by NATO defenses in the Mediterranean.

Also, days ago there was an avalanche of global headlines alleging the CIA was preparing Kurdish groups based in Iraq for a cross-border attack on Iran.

Some of these are the very groups Turkey has long been bombing just across its eastern border in northern Iraq. While Iraq as well as the Iraqi Kurdistan government of the north denied that this was happening – the alleged plan has the potential to destabilize part of southeast Turkey.

U.S. Embassy in Ankara has ordered all non-essential personnel to leave its consulate in Adana, located near NATO’s Incirlik Air Base. It has also urged Americans to leave southeastern Turkey immediately. https://t.co/ImrW3rRWvi

— OSINT Spectator (@osintspectator) March 9, 2026

The State Dept alert could be alluding to the tense geopolitical situation with the Kurds in the following: “Terrorists may attack tourist locations, transportation hubs, markets, malls, hotels, and places of worship,” the advisory warned.

Via Rabobank,

Anybody thinking US payrolls, even at -92K, matters much in the current environment is probably at the head of the queue to be replaced by an AI soon. That data series is always volatile and 2.5m undocumented workers are estimated to have left the US since Trump was re-elected: 394K foreign-born workers lost their jobs in the reported month while the native-born series rose 877K, albeit after a shocking 2.5m drop of its own the month before. How can anyone take these numbers seriously even if the underlying signal is deadly serious?

This is eclipsed by Brent oil this morning trading over $110 with WTI at $107: both look to be going exponential, perhaps even opening up the $150 scenario the GCC warn of. Worse, that doesn’t account for more dramatic moves in diesel, jet fuel, fertilizer, key chemicals like sulphur, and gases like helium, without which not a lot moves in the industrial economy, grows in the agricultural economy, or is produced in terms of metals like copper and tech goods like chips.

In short, this is now starting to look like a potential combination of the 1973 post-Yom Kippur War oil shock, the 2022 Russia-Ukraine War commodity shock, and the 2020-21 Covid supply chain shock. 

The longer this goes on, the more exponential the damage becomes in a domino effect, which is exactly what oil is now showing to a market that saw some takes last week that ‘things could be a lot worse.’ Well, now they are: and if we are still in the same position this time next week, things could be quite terrifying.

Yet while credible estimates today are that if all fighting were to suddenly cease, it would take two weeks to start to right the ship and a further two months to get back to normal, what we should call Gulf War 3 is showing many signs of widening its geography and escalating within it.

On geography: even if Trump is reportedly now against using the Kurds as a military wedge against Tehran (perhaps due to Turkish opposition), Azerbaijan, which was recently struck by Iran, is another matter. So is Pakistan, which has underlined its mutual defence pact with the Saudis. EU member Cyprus has reported that the drone which struck it was fired by Hezbollah in Lebanon, and was a Russian Shaheed model, not an Iranian one. Russia has also openly said that it isn’t neutral in this conflict, and favours Iran, alongside reports that it’s providing Tehran with data to help it strike its opponents. In Lebanon, Israeli actions are intensifying.

On escalation: after an apology to its neighbours from Iran’s president was rebuffed by the IRGC, the weekend saw strikes on energy facilities against both sides, where Iran came off worse. Moreover, we saw several reports of attacks on desalination plants: if those critical facilities were to go in the region, much of its population would have to as well. Trump is reportedly weighing the introduction of special forces ground troops into Iran, while a third carrier strike group is now on the way. Moreover, Tehran has appointed Mojtaba Khamenei, the son of the former Supreme Leader, to replace him. He is clearly unacceptable to both the US and Israel and reflects the hardest of lines from the regime rather than any possible compromise, Venezuela style.

It’s also time to take a deep breath and note energy expert Anas Alhajji is asking if this is a gigantic US error or part of a plan. 

I’d flagged 2026, besides telling 2025 to “hold my beer”, was logically going to see the US use its military to disrupt upstream supply chains heading to China to counterbalance the downstream and rare-earths midstream (i.e., processing) dominance Beijing can coerce it with. The goal was cheap commodities for them and pricey ones for others.

Alhajji takes this further to note that the US is *relatively* less impacted by the tidal wave of economic and market chaos heading our way: 

• the US (with the Americas) is relatively energy self-sufficient: what if the US were to stop exporting oil, its historic policy norm, to bring WTI down sharply, for example? Could we, as others float, see $200 oil globally and $50 oil State-side?

• Likewise, US LNG is now the lowest risk global choice: who will trust the Gulf as a secure provider again unless the entire region is brought under a true Pax Americana?

• The US, with the Americas, is also self-sufficient in many commodities being choked off directly or indirectly via Hormuz. That includes fertilizer, which means US and LatAm food supplies could remain secure when others’ aren’t. It also includes helium, which allows for the manufacture of semiconductors, when others may be about to fall short.

By contrast, Europe is again in a bad position in this looming crisis, as are energy- and commodity-reliant Asian exporters already struggling with US tariffs.

China will have to rely on its stockpiles for a while, then Russia, which greatly strengthens Moscow’s hand in that relationship.

Perhaps this is paranoia or looking for a strategy in a geopolitical miscalculation; or it could have been a plan B if Iran didn’t ‘do a Venezuela’; or it might just be a happy coincidence the US can now take advantage of if it wishes.

Yet the Donroe Doctrine ‘Shield of the Americas’ project launched at the same time as Gulf War 3, the increased likelihood Cuba flips to the US camp, following the pressure on Greenland, and the evident lead set by US economic (and military) statecraft is quite the coincidence if this is all just random.

Indeed, it’s incredibly important to grasp that this *might* be the Great Game being played, because if it is, assuming “because markets” will bail us out (“Iran/Trump can’t let this happen”) could be false hope.

Oil vey, indeed.

Week ahead

Tuesday: sees more of Japan Q4 GDP, Aussie NAB business confidence, German trade data, Chinese trade data, and the US NFIB small business survey and existing home sales.

Wednesday: has US CPI. Again, irrelevant right now.

Thursday: it’s US trade data and initial claims, housing starts and building permits.

Friday: sees UK industrial production and trade data, Canadian employment, US personal income and spending and the PCE deflator, durable goods, initial claims, JOLTS data, and Michigan inflation expectations.  

Authored by Sylvia Xu via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Dr. Mehmet Oz launched a federal investigation into New York’s Medicaid program on March 3, citing the unusual spending trend in the state.

“Heart surgeons are trained to look at the numbers. When something doesn’t add up, you don’t ignore it; you investigate,” Oz, administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and a former heart surgeon, said in a video posted on X.

“Right now, the numbers coming out of New York’s Medicaid program don’t add up,” he said.

New York far outspends other states on its Medicaid program, both on a statewide and per beneficiary basis, according to Oz’s letter to New York Gov. Kathy Hochul.

Numbers

New York’s Medicaid program spends more than $90 billion a year, the second-highest total in the nation, Oz said. That’s roughly 10 percent of the nation’s $900 billion in Medicaid spending for 2024.

New York’s average spending on each beneficiary is more than $12,500, which is 36 percent higher than the national average. The state’s per-resident spending is the highest in the country, nearly 80 percent higher than the national average.

As of January, about one-third of New Yorkers—6.7 million individuals—have enrolled in Medicaid.

That is nearly 14 percentage points higher than the national average of 20 percent Medicaid enrollment, according to November data from the federal government.

“That alone demands scrutiny, but it gets worse,” Oz said in the video.

In addition to New York’s Medicaid enrollment size, Oz cited the workforce delivering long-term care, particularly home-based personal care services, as another driver of New York’s high Medicaid spending.

Between 2023 and 2024, 38 percent of job growth in New York was from the home health and personal care aide category.

“Now, New York has turned this [Medicaid] program to help our most vulnerable into a massive jobs program reimbursed by federal taxpayers,” Oz said.

Personal care services include daily living assistance such as eating, bathing, and dressing. Patients need such services due to aging, chronic illness, or disability.

From 2023 through mid-2025, New York state provided personal care services for nearly 75 percent of its Medicaid enrollees at a cost of $45 billion.

In fiscal year 2024, the state’s Medicaid spending on personal care services was $18.5 billion, nearly 70 percent more than other states’ combined spending on this item, according to The Epoch Times’ analysis of open data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

“That level of utilization is unheard of,” said Oz.

New York state allowed problems such as being “easily distracted” to qualify for a personal care system, making personal care services the number one occupation in the state, Oz said.

Demand for Documentation

He said officials must send documents on how they handle fraud, waste, and abuse, or their federal payments will be put on hold.

“We ask hard questions; we expect an honest answer,” Oz said.

On March 4, Gov. Hochul said the Trump administration was targeting New York for political reasons. She added that she would “show them the facts” to prove them wrong and promised to help fight any actual fraud, according to The Associated Press.

The federal government temporarily deferred $259 million in Medicaid payments to Minnesota over alleged fraud on Feb. 25.

Oz said the money would be released after Minnesota proposes and acts on a “comprehensive corrective action plan to solve the problem.”

Minnesota sued the federal government on March 2 to stop it from withholding funding. The state warned that freezing these funds could force cuts to medical care for low-income residents.

G-7 finance ministers are holding an emergency meeting on Monday morning to discuss options to cap skyrocketing energy prices, with Brent and WTI trading in triple-digit territory as the Middle East conflict threatens to unleash a global energy shock. As the U.S.-Iran conflict intensifies heading into the new week, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps has warned of $200-a-barrel oil.

IRGC spokesman Ebrahim Zolfighari said on Monday that the U.S. has begun a new chapter in the conflict by targeting Iran’s energy infrastructure.

“If they can afford the price of oil at $200 per barrel, let them keep playing this game,” Zolfighari said in a video message posted by Al Jazeera on X.

“If they can afford the price of oil at $200 per barrel, let them keep playing this game.”

The spokesman for a wing of the IRGC, Ebrahim Zolfighari, says the US has opened a new chapter in the war by bombing Iran’s energy infrastructure. pic.twitter.com/UNy21beiAj

— Al Jazeera English (@AJEnglish) March 9, 2026

Over the weekend, Israeli strikes on major oil facilities around Tehran, combined with production shut-ins by major Gulf producers and IRGC retaliatory attacks on energy facilities across the Middle East, sparked panic in energy markets worldwide, with Brent crude briefly topping $119 per barrel in Asian trading.

On Friday, Goldman analyst Daan Struyven wrote four reasons why oil prices are moving higher:

• Shipping has stopped. We estimate that shipments passing through the Strait of Hormuz are down 90% from normal, curtailing 18 mbpd from the global market (~18% of global oil).

• Pipeline pressures. We estimate only about 25% of the theoretical redirection of oil in the Middle East through pipelines is currently being achieved, partly due to physical disruptions. We estimate only ~0.9 mbpd are incrementally coming to market through Middle East pipeline initiatives.

• No quick shipping solutions. Our conversations highlight that most shippers are in a wait-and-see mode while physical risks in the SoH are high.

• Demand destruction may be necessary. With no supply relief in sight, oil prices may need to go to demand-destruction levels even more quickly than history and simple models focusing on Persian Gulf exports alone suggest.

Goldman’s Rich Privorotsky commented on the speculation of SPR dumps, indicating:

Such a release would buy time. If the disruption proves temporary, a coordinated SPR release makes sense. If the disruption persists for months, those reserves might arguably be more valuable at higher prices or in a more acute shortage.

Additionally, energy economist Anas Alhajji warned UBS analysts last week about SPR limitations:

“The impact of the U.S. SPR is limited. Saudi Arabia is completely out of the picture. All of that spare capacity in OPEC is out of the picture. So what do we do? We are then left relying on demand destruction to curb”

Related:

• JPMorgan’s New Hormuz Closure Math: Just 3 Days Until Commodity Chaos

What’s evident is that Operation Epic Fury, which initially focused on military, nuclear, missile, and IRGC sites, is now targeting economic high-value assets, with Iran’s Kharg Island now in focus (read). 

Via Modernity.news,

The Iran conflict has ignited a massive surge in demand for nuclear-proof bunkers across America, with even top Trump administration officials securing their own underground fortresses amid whispers of World War Three.

As The Telegraph reports, Ron Hubbard, owner of Atlas Survival Shelters, reports being “inundated with calls” since the conflict erupted, with enquiries spiking “tenfold.”

The Texas-based company, which builds everything from $20,000 basic shelters to multimillion-dollar compounds, is reaping a harvest from the heightened tensions.

Hubbard revealed that two senior Trump Cabinet members are new customers.

“One of them texted me yesterday, asking me: ‘When will my bunker be ready?’” he said.

These bunkers boast hardened steel construction, armoured blast doors, air purification systems, and luxuries like cinemas, pools, and gun ranges—designed to withstand drone strikes or worse.

Yet Hubbard is blunt about limits:

“No bunker in the world is designed to withstand a bunker buster from an American bomber. I’m sorry you just can’t make a bunker strong enough.”

He added: “If the Americans want you dead, you’re dead. I don’t think any bunker in the world can protect you from an American that wants to kill you.”

The boom extends globally, with Hubbard’s new Dubai office fielding urgent requests after Iranian missiles hit the city.

“They thought they’d never see bombs fall. But now [they’re getting the s— bombed out of them],” he noted of local clients.

Atlas averaged $2 million in monthly sales this year but expects $50 million next month.

“Bunker building is like being a farmer. When it’s time for harvest, you have to reap all you can,” Hubbard explained. “Now that they’ve been bombed, they’re all going to want shelters. It’s just a fact of life.”

Hubbard has built for tech moguls like Mark Zuckerberg and even Andrew Tate, underscoring how elites are hedging against chaos.

Oklo and Centrus Energy announced they have agreed to pursue a joint venture focused on deconversion services for high-assay low-enriched uranium (HALEU) and the advancement of related fuel-cycle technologies and supply chains.

The JV would operate at Centrus’ Piketon site in Ohio, co-located with the existing enrichment facility and adjacent to Oklo’s planned 1.2 GW power campus. Centrus also recently started expansion efforts at their site and was awarded $900 million to support their HALEU project.

The language being used by company leadership to describe the goals of the JV points to their intentions of pursuing the establishment of a Nuclear Lifecycle Innovation Campus (NLIC) in Ohio.

CEO and co-founder of Oklo Jacob DeWitte stated:

“This framework supports deeper discussions with Centrus on potential pathways to expand deconversion capacity, strengthen domestic supply chains, and advance a more efficient fuel-cycle model that operates from the same location.”

The NLIC program is a push by the DOE to incentivize state governments to host the various stages of the nuclear fuel chain within their borders. States like Texas, Tennessee, and Ohio are getting the message. Other anti-nuclear waste states like New Mexico and California will continue denying their residents the extra tax revenue and high paying job opportunities…

Deconversion transforms enriched uranium hexafluoride (UF6) into forms such as uranium metal or oxide suitable for fabricating fuel assemblies in next-generation reactors. A centralized facility could eliminate the need for individual developers to establish their own deconversion capabilities.

This announcement advances a longstanding partnership. The companies first collaborated via a 2021 letter of intent and expanded ties with a 2023 memorandum of understanding that included HALEU supply from Centrus, component manufacturing, power procurement from Oklo’s plants, and plans for deconversion and fuel fabrication.

As we have been pounding the table for months now, it seems like more companies are getting serious about finally addressing the shortcomings in the American nuclear fuel chain.

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

In Rage and the Republic, I quote former Rep. Jaamal Bowman (D., N.Y.) as capturing the essence of an age of rage when a colleague asked him to stop yelling outside of the House floor. Bowman responded, “I was screaming before you interrupted me.”

Bowman’s statement came to mind this week when Democratic members were miffed when they were interrupted in tirades over war powers with questions about their prior support for unilateral attacks by Democratic presidents. Leaders like Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D., Cal.) and Sen. Adam Schiff (D., Cal.) struggled to explain their prior support for President Barack Obama in doing precisely that in Libya with embarrassing results.

The greatest face plant may have been Schiff’s appearance on “Real Time” with host Bill Maher.

After Schiff denounced any attack without prior congressional approval, Maher read “This statement from the administration: ‘The president had the constitutional authority to direct the use of military force because he could reasonably determine that such use of force was in the national interest.’”

He then asked Schiff, “That’s too vague for you?”

Schiff responded, “Totally vague…”

Mayer than dropped the H bomb: “Okay. Because that’s from Obama about Libya.”

🚨Bill Maher TRAPS Sen. Adam Schiff LIVE on air while U.S. strikes on the Middle East.

Schiff rips into the “vague” statement, convinced it’s from Trump… BUT FINDS OUT IT’S FROM OBAMA🤣

The double standard is glaring. 😂pic.twitter.com/qpQoOU4Hqn

— The Rubin Report (@RubinReportShow) March 9, 2026

The moment laid bare the towering hypocrisy of democrats who continued to support Obama after he attacked Libya without any suggested imminent threat to the United States and an open strategy of regime change.

I represented members of Congress opposing that war over the absence of a declaration of war; most of the senior Democrats today refused to join that litigation.

Pelosi is especially hypocritical on the issue.

She expressly declared that Obama did not need congressional authorization to launch unilateral attacks on Libya seeking regime change. She stated unequivocally that ”I’m satisfied that the president has the authority to go ahead. I say that as one very protective of Congressional prerogative and consultation all along the way.”

Reporters then followed up and pressed her if she really believed that a president could not only launch an unprovoked war but could also continue combat operations without congressional approval. Pelosi answered “yes.”

This week, she made a ham-fisted effort to spin the contradiction. She told the media that the Iran and Libyan wars are “two completely different things. They’re not at all alike.”

Pelosi added, “What Obama did was limited military force. This is beyond that. It was limited military force.” In signature fashion, she then struck out at pesky reporters asking about her past position: “Do your homework. Read the law. We have lost people in war already… I just think if you read the law, you will see the difference.”

While not challenged on the spin, it is historically and legally nonsensical.

The Libyan War was not limited. The Obama Administration attacked the capital city of a country that was posing no imminent threat to the United States. It also took out columns of Libyan military units. It did so with the overt strategy of producing regime change. Figures like then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton supported the action, which led to years of violence and instability in the country.

More importantly, it is immaterial how the two major operations stack up. The question is whether a president can launch large-scale military operations against another country based on their inherent Article II powers. Both Obama and Trump maintained that they could do so and we lost the challenge to the Libyan War.

Moreover, while there are good-faith objections to the need for the attack, presidents have successfully claimed the right to initiate combat operations without congressional authorization.  That has boxed in Congress since the Jefferson administration.

Even though both Democratic and Republican presidents have questioned the constitutionality of the War Powers Act, Trump has actually complied with the requirements to notify and consult with Congress.  The law requires presidents to inform Congress within 48 hours if U.S. forces are introduced into hostilities and requires congressional authorization for engagements that last more than 60 days.

Moreover, both houses have now voted and rejected any limits on Trump’s authority to prosecute this war.

They are, of course, not alone in this hypocrisy.

In 2011,  Sen. Richard Blumenthal praised Obama’s unilateral attack on Libya as a “prudent, decisive action.” This year, he denounced Trump’s attack on Iran as a “unilateral action without accountability…engaging in a war of choice that rejects opportunities for diplomacy.”

These glaring contradictions mean little today in our post-truth political environment. These politicians know that their base does not care as long as they oppose Trump. The obvious misrepresentation of their positions in the past would ordinarily be viewed as raw contempt for the intelligence of the voters. However, they know their base and the license of rage. They also know that the media will not press particularly hard on their flip-flop.

It is that rage that is giving Democrats the courage to vote virtually unanimously to end all combat operations in the midst of an existential battle over Iran. It is the same assurance that is evident in continuing the government shutdown by denying funding to the Department of Homeland Security.

The vote not to fund Homeland Security during a fight with the leading state sponsor of terrorism may stand as the single most reckless, irresponsible vote since Congress authorized the payment of “tribute” to the Barbary Pirates.

The important thing is that, now that these members simply denied that there is any contradiction with their positions from prior Democratic Administrations, they can now avoid further interruptions in this rage rave.

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