iftttwall

Via CityAM,

• According to a new poll, most British voters want lower energy costs and tax cuts to support growth.

• A large majority rated the UK economy as poor and showed little faith in current progress.

• Business leaders are also increasingly pessimistic, citing geopolitics and rising costs.

British voters want Rachel Reeves to cut taxes and reduce energy costs in order to focus on growth, as a majority of people felt the UK economy was “poor”, new research has shown.

Polling by Freshwater Strategy for the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA), a free market think tank, suggested that the vast majority of Brits wanted the Labour government to focus on economic growth more than it currently does. 

The findings back up the Labour government’s primary mission, which is to grow the UK economy. 

But respondents in a survey and focus groups suggested that voters supported small-state policies to deliver improved growth, as much of the public was confused about the measurements used by the government to track achievements. 

Polling found that 77 percent believed energy costs should be reduced, while 72 percent backed lower taxes for workers. A slightly lower portion, 66 per cent, backed tax cuts for businesses. 

When faced with a direct choice, Britons backed economic growth even if it led to some environmental damage, while most also wanted energy to be cheaper, even if it meant slower progress to net zero. 

Taxes and energy costs top Brits’ priorities

Respondents to the survey of 3,000 voters were also more likely to say that GDP growth benefited the government more than individuals. 

In a damning indictment, nearly two-thirds of people (65 per cent) rated the UK economy as “poor” but overestimated the average wealth of Brits compared to Germans, Australians, and Americans. 

Kristian Niemietz, editorial director of the IEA, said the lack of progress made in the last 18 years “should be the number one public policy issue of our time”. 

“While political discourse in Britain may not always reflect it, Britain is clearly not a country that is comfortable with economic stagnation and relative decline,” Niemietz said.

“We still have the social expectations associated with a growing economy. What we do not have is the economic performance to match those expectations.”

Middle East war rattles finance chiefs

Low sentiment across the public reflects wider pessimism among business leaders, with one survey of 79 chief financial officers suggesting that confidence had fallen to a six-year low. 

Deloitte’s finance chief survey suggested that the war in the Middle East had weakened top business leaders’ hopes of an economic recovery, as geopolitics was cited as the top risk. 

Levels of concern around geopolitics were at a record high, according to the survey, while rising energy prices and the prospect of higher interest rates were also among the top risks. 

Deloitte UK chief economist Ian Stewart said: “Rarely in the last 16 years have UK chief financial officers been more focused on cost control than today. 

“This challenging environment is prompting chief financial officers to scale back expectations for margins and sharpen their focus on cost reduction and cash conservation. 

“The immediate priority for finance leaders is to strengthen balance sheets in the face of external headwinds.”

Authored by Chris Morrison via THE DAILY SCEPTIC,

Decades of careful grooming of incurious journalists designed to whip up a non-existent climate emergency have failed to halt a dramatic continuing collapse in mainstream media stories backing the Net Zero fantasy. Last year saw a 14% global slump in climate-related stories compared to 2024, which was already 38% down on peak Greta hysteria in 2021. Perhaps there is only so long that once trusting consumers are prepared to read, let alone pay for identical, narrative-driven drivel that is often so one-sided that it is an insult to the intelligence. Exhibit 1: the BBC’s October 2023 classic – Climate change could make beer taste worse. 

The greatest declines over 2025 were found in Africa, the Middle East and North America. Interestingly, the failed Amazon COP30 meeting in November 2025 was followed the month after by coverage falling off a cliff in Latin America (-61%), Oceania (-52%) and the European Union (-41%). A period of private grief seems to have given  the long-suffering public a merciful break from the relentless cacophony of climate catastrophising. 

News of the continuing falls in climate change and global warming coverage are contained in the latest annual report from the Media and Climate Change Observatory (MeCCO) at the University of Colorado Boulder. To produce its latest findings, MeCCO tracked the volume of newspaper, wire services, radio and TV climate stories across 59 countries and seven regions. The work is said to have used a consistent methodology since 2004.The graph below shows clearly the spikes in the Greta hysteria around the start of the current decade, and the earlier Gore grift that followed the release of his ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ film.

University journalism courses often run climate modules but prospects for aspiring students looking to make the world safe for Net Zero fanatics do not look good. The Guardian can only do so much, but in the UK, coverage was 34% down in the 12 months to November 2025. In the USA, the sackings have started with a vengeance. Last year, new managers at CBS News removed most of the climate crisis team. Recent reports suggest that everyone on the climate beat has now been binned. In February 2026, the Washington Post cut 14 climate writing positions, leaving only five journalists in place.

Last year was a bad time for the climate groomers that are largely funded by Green Blob billionaires seeking societal upheaval by depriving modern (and developing) industrial countries of vital hydrocarbons. Groomed journalists working in narrative-driven mainstream media are seen as key to driving up fear of the invented climate crisis. One of the first lessons taught to useful idiot fear mongers is that the opinion, often incorrectly referred to as a theory, that human cause most if not all recent  climate change, is ‘settled’. The incurious are not encouraged to ask if this is the first scientific opinion to be declared settled, or at least the first since the Roman Popes of old adjudicated ex cathedra on these matters.

In the UK, the National Council for the Training of Journalists (NCTJ) is a respected industry-based charity that has operated since the 1950s. But its climate change training is laughable. In what other investigative fields are journalists encouraged to rely on a claimed ‘consensus’, and encouraged not to disclose alternative views? What quicker way is there, it might be asked, to replacing the writer with an AI tool? Funded by the Google News Initiative (GNI), the NCTJ offers a free e-learning course on climate change reporting. As with all climate science grooming agitprop sessions, there is a warning about avoiding ‘false balance’. In effect, this means denying publicity to sceptical scientists who investigate opinion by following the time-honoured process of scientific falsification.

GNI is a major funder of the attempts made to silence dissenting climate opinions. One of the major weapons deployed involve so-called ‘fact-checkers’ which, in the Daily Sceptic’s own experience, do little more than attack inconvenient science findings with opinionated claims of ‘misinformation’. Discussing the underlying science does not appear to be a priority, rather the negative verdicts are helpful in cancelling advertising, and diminishing impact in the social media sphere.

In the UK, GNI is a funder of the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism. Until recently, this operation ran a six-month groomer for climate writers under its Oxford Climate Journalism Network (OCJN) operation. The course has also attracted considerable funding from the former Extinction Rebellion paymaster Sir Christopher Hohn, and over four years it hosted around 800 journalists from 80 countries. Alas, the indoctrination pitstop pulled down the shutters late last year. The “flagship online course” will no longer be setting tasks asking participants to write a news story showing why mangoes are less tasty this year due to climate change. We can only pray that similar restrictions now apply to other climate-challenged comestibles.

It seems the world is getting tired of clickbait, centrally-determined climate claptrap that for too long has provided an unscientific base for the Net Zero fantasy. Pseudoscience gaslighting has allowed rigged computer models to predict headline-grabbing Armageddon ‘tipping points’, and contributed to the mainstream spread of unchallenged lies that extreme weather events are getting worse. Good news stories such as the major ‘greening’ of the Earth are ignored, while the vital role played in this by the gas of life carbon dioxide is downplayed. None more so than SciLine, a Green Blob-funded operation connected to the Association for the Advancement of Science, publisher of Science.

“In many cases, CO2 disproportionately favours weeds over crops causing more problems for agriculture”, it helpfully notes in its guide to journalists.

Germany’s parliament has approved a sizeable contract for defense giant Rheinmetall to supply loitering munitions, or kamikaze drones, to the Bundeswehr, underscoring just how quickly European militaries are internalizing drone warfare lessons from both the Russia-Ukraine war and, more recently, the U.S.-Iran conflict. Berlin’s latest procurement push makes it clear that one-way attack drones are becoming a serious threat, and the race to stockpile them has begun.

Bloomberg reports that the budget committee of the Bundestag approved the Defense Ministry’s proposal for an initial tranche of Rheinmetall’s suicide drones worth $345 million.

The deal is capped at around $1.2 billion for Rheinmetall loitering munitions and depends on the firm meeting development and delivery milestones. The drones are initially intended for Germany’s brigade in Lithuania, but there is a possibility that they will be deployed elsewhere.

The approval follows Germany’s February decision to purchase $637 million worth of strike drones from startups Helsing and STARK. Rheinmetall missed out on those deals because it lacked a working prototype at the time.

The Defense Ministry confirmed the latest contract without identifying Rheinmetall: “As with the other two contracts, there are clearly defined qualification requirements, termination milestones, and innovation clauses.”

Lessons learned from the current conflicts across Eurasia have served as a wake-up call for countries around the world, unleashing a frantic race among the world’s militaries to procure low-cost attack drones.

What follows will be counter-drone systems to combat this emerging threat, as the war in the Middle East showed that the US and its Gulf allies lacked low-cost solutions.

On the U.S. homeland front, the Federal Aviation Administration has given the U.S. military the green light to deploy high-energy counter-drone laser weapons in U.S. airspace. Alarmingly, there are very few, if not any, low-cost counter-drone systems guarding America’s data centers, transmission substations, stadiums, and other critical infrastructure.

One month before the US-Iran conflict broke out, we informed readers of the urgent need for data centers to consider counter-drone systems. What followed were multiple data centers struck by Iranian drones in the Gulf region. Civilian infrastructure will not be spared as the world becomes increasingly dangerous and chaotic.

Authored by Gisele Widdershoven via OilPrice.com,

• Europe’s electrification strategy is ambitious but constrained by lagging grid infrastructure, creating bottlenecks that are already delaying industry and investment.

• Massive funding needs—running into trillions—combined with regulatory complexity and slow buildouts are exposing a gap between policy ambition and physical reality.

• Without better coordination, prioritization, and financing, Europe risks higher costs, weaker competitiveness, and a stalled energy transition.

The message given by Ursula von der Leyen to electrify the European economy is strategically coherent, politically appealing, and, on the surface, even unavoidable. It will be the real deal to decarbonize industry and power transport, reduce dependence on imported fossil fuels, and anchor Europe’s competitiveness. The latter is especially valid in an increasingly fragmented geopolitical order. Electrification is presented as the backbone of Europe’s future prosperity and security.

However, beneath this clear vision lies a far more uncomfortable reality. Brussels is not only pursuing an energy transition but also transforming its industrial base, transport systems, infrastructure networks, and geopolitical posture. All of this needs to be done while facing an increased financial, physical, and strategic strain. Electrification is not failing at present because the overall idea or strategy is wrong, but because the system required to support it is already overstretched. At the same time, and maybe even more important, the bill to fix that system is only beginning to emerge.

The real core problem of Brussels is not its ambition, but the sequencing of it all.

Europe is already accelerating the electrification of demand, mainly in the industrial, transport, and heating sectors, while simultaneously pushing to expand renewable supply at an unprecedented speed. One pivotal issue, however, seems to be constantly forgotten: the infrastructure that must connect the two is lagging dangerously behind. Policymakers and advisors should realize that electricity systems are not abstract constructs, but physical networks with hard limits. Throughout Europe, these limits have already been reached.

The prime example of this situation is the Netherlands.

Throughout the continent, the Dutch energy transition has been presented as a model: one of the highest per-capita deployments of offshore wind in the world, widespread solar adoption, aggressive electrification policies, and a political consensus around decarbonization. If Brussels’ overall strategy were working as intended, the Netherlands should be its showcase.

In reality, however, it is its warning.

At present, the Dutch electricity grid is no longer able to keep pace with the pace of change. The country’s grid congestion has become structural, not incidental. An ever-growing list of thousands of companies, some even stating 15,000+, are already on waiting lists for grid connections or capacity upgrades. In several Dutch regions, industrial clusters cannot expand, while new investments are delayed or diverted. The most shocking issue is that even residential developments are hindered or blocked by the lack of electricity.

The paradox is striking. At certain moments, especially when there is a positive combination of wind and sun, the Netherlands produces more renewable electricity than it can use. At other times, the country cannot supply enough electricity to meet demand. The Dutch system is increasingly hit by a system that needs to deal with a simultaneous suffering of surplus and scarcity.

This is not a temporary imbalance but the predictable outcome of a system in which generation has outpaced infrastructure. It is also where Europe’s electrification narrative begins to unravel.

The EC’s strategy again assumes a relatively smooth scaling of supply, demand, and infrastructure. Reality, however, is much more complex. At present, infrastructure development lags due to permitting constraints, investment bottlenecks, and physical construction timelines. At the same time, demand does not scale linearly, especially when industries hesitate amid uncertainty about costs and grid access. The system itself introduces frictions, such as congestion, curtailment, and volatility, all undermining efficiency.

Across Europe, an increasing number of grid operators are issuing urgent warnings as connection queues grow while investment pipelines stall. All are looking at a situation where the congestion costs are rising. And yet the policy response remains focused primarily on accelerating renewable deployment and electrification targets, as if infrastructure will inevitably follow.

It will not.

Right now, now is that electricity grids cannot be expanded at the pace of policy ambition. Building high-voltage transmission lines takes years, often more than a decade. At the same time, distribution networks require massive upgrades to handle decentralized generation and electrified demand. Local opposition, environmental regulations, and supply chain constraints slow all of this.

Brussels dramatically underestimates the scale of investment needed, which should motivate industry leaders to develop innovative financing strategies and advocate for substantial capital allocation to meet the €660 billion annual target and beyond.

To be clear, this is not incremental spending, but a structural reallocation of capital on a scale rarely seen outside wartime economies.

Given the €1.2 trillion investment requirement for electricity grids alone by 2040, policymakers should explore innovative financing models, public-private partnerships, and EU-level funding instruments to mobilize the necessary capital efficiently.

Addressing electrification requires a collective effort to rebuild Europe’s entire energy backbone, highlighting the importance of coordinated strategic planning among policymakers, industry, and investors to prevent economic inefficiency and political fragility.

That is where the Dutch case becomes valid. The Netherlands has already demonstrated that high levels of renewable penetration do not automatically translate into effective electrification. Without grid capacity, renewable energy cannot be fully utilized. Without certainty about the connection, industrial electrification stalls. Without system flexibility, volatility increases.

In other words, the transition becomes economically inefficient and politically fragile.

Another major constraint is that the financial challenge does not exist in isolation. It is unfolding within a rapidly deteriorating geopolitical environment.

The European Union is simultaneously being forced to increase defense spending, support Ukraine, and respond to renewed instability in global energy markets. The war in Ukraine has already triggered a structural shift in defense priorities, with European defense spending reaching hundreds of billions annually and new EU-level instruments targeting up to €800 billion in mobilized resources.

Since the last two months, tensions in the Middle East, especially in Hormuz, have reintroduced energy security risks that Europe had hoped electrification would mitigate. Roughly a fifth of global oil and LNG flows through Hormuz. Even partial disruptions immediately translate into higher prices, increased volatility, and renewed dependence on external suppliers.

This strategic contradiction is compounded by geopolitical risks, such as disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz and increased defense spending, which threaten to undermine Europe’s energy security and complicate the transition to electrification despite its intended benefits.

Brussels attempts to invest heavily in electrification to reduce energy vulnerability, while simultaneously being forced to spend heavily on defense and absorb the costs of ongoing fossil fuel dependence. The energy transition does not replace one system with another, but it layers new costs on top of old ones.

This is the fiscal collision at the heart of the European project. The real question right now, which needs to be answered honestly, is: who is going to pay?

Most European governments are already fiscally constrained, as public debt levels remain elevated following the pandemic and energy crisis. They also need to deal with increased defense spending, while social pressures are rising. The idea that national budgets alone can finance the electrification of the economy is no longer credible.

Again, private capital is often presented as the solution. Brussels strategy relies heavily on mobilizing institutional investors, de-risking projects, and leveraging capital markets. However, private capital is not a substitute for public strategy. Private capital flows where risk-adjusted returns are predictable. Grid infrastructure, industrial electrification, and system flexibility often do not meet these criteria without significant public guarantees.

Moreover, the scale required goes far beyond what current mechanisms can deliver. Even ambitious instruments such as the Innovation Fund or the proposed Industrial Decarbonization Bank, targeting tens or even hundreds of billions, remain small relative to the annual investment gap.

Europe’s uncomfortable truth is that it will need to adopt a fundamentally different financing model. Electrification at this scale clearly requires something closer to a strategic investment doctrine than a collection of policy instruments. Brussels will need to deal with a reality that requires prioritization, coordination, and, for all parties, critical acceptance of trade-offs.

• First, Europe will need to elevate energy infrastructure to the same strategic level as defense. If joint borrowing and coordinated financing can be justified for military capabilities, the same logic applies to cross-border electricity grids, storage systems, and industrial electrification corridors. These are not optional climate investments; they are the foundation of economic resilience.

• Second, existing revenue streams, particularly from carbon pricing mechanisms, must be more aggressively redirected toward infrastructure. The current allocation is insufficient relative to the scale of need.

• Third, public financial institutions, the European Investment Bank and national development banks—must significantly expand their role, particularly in areas where private capital remains hesitant.

All the above, however, will eliminate the need for prioritization.

The current reality shows that Europe cannot fund everything simultaneously. It cannot electrify all industries at once, build all infrastructure at once, and meet all geopolitical commitments without making choices. It is a political illusion to believe that coordination and efficiency gains will eliminate trade-offs.

The Dutch experience already demonstrates what happens when these trade-offs are ignored. Infrastructure constraints begin to shape economic outcomes. Investments are delayed or redirected. The energy transition loses momentum not because of political opposition, but because of practical limitations.

If we scale the Dutch experience to the European level, the consequences could be far more significant. Industries that depend on reliable, high-capacity electricity, especially chemicals, steel, and data infrastructure, will look beyond Europe if energy systems cannot deliver. Investment flows may shift to regions with more robust infrastructure. And Europe’s industrial base could erode at precisely the moment it seeks to strengthen it.

This is the risk embedded in the current electrification narrative.

Brussels assumes that more renewable energy and more electrification will automatically lead to lower costs, greater security, and enhanced competitiveness. Facts on the ground, however, show that without the infrastructure and financing to support it, the opposite may occur: higher costs, increased volatility, and reduced competitiveness.

The greatest danger is not a failure of electrification, but that it will proceed in an unbalanced way. There is a huge risk of too much generation without infrastructure, too much demand without connectivity, and too much ambition without sequence.

This is already happening.

The Netherlands shows that even a highly advanced energy transition can hit hard physical limits. These limits are not theoretical. They are visible in grid congestion, curtailed renewable output, delayed investments, and constrained economic growth.

Europe as a whole is now approaching the same inflection point.

Von der Leyen is right that electricity will define Europe’s future. However, to define the future is not the same as building it. Brussels needs to understand that building requires infrastructure that takes decades, capital that runs into trillions, and political choices that are far more difficult than current rhetoric suggests. We are not only looking at an energy strategy when pursuing electrification, but also at a test of Europe’s ability to align ambition with reality.

At present, that alignment is missing.

The physical limits of a grid need to be confronted by Europe, including the financial scale of its ambitions, and the geopolitical pressures shaping its choices. If not, the electrification agenda will remain incomplete. Again, the vision is not wrong, but the system required to deliver it is not yet ready. At the same time, the willingness to pay for it has not yet been fully acknowledged.

Authored by Brandon Smith via Alt-Market.us

In March I published an article titled “Global Energy Crisis Or Iranian Surrender In Five Weeks?” in which I outlined the “worst case” and “best case” scenarios for the war in Iran. In my best case scenario I argued in favor of a specific plan to end the conflict quickly: A US naval blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, flipping the tables on Iran by blocking or seizing any oil tankers or gas tankers which exit Iranian ports.

Two weeks later, the Trump Administration has implemented this exact strategy.

The effectiveness of the blockade is already apparent; the propaganda bots on social media are scrambling to find a narrative to counter it, but they are failing. Why? Because Iran already tried to lock down the strait (which is an international waterway), and any government cheering (or secretly cheering) for Iran’s actions is now unable to make a rational argument against the US doing the same thing to Iran. As I noted in March:

“We constantly hear about international exposure to the Hormuz shutdown, but the media rarely mentions that Iran is the MOST exposed economy of all. For now, Iranian oil ships continue to pass through the strait and these vessels are Iran’s economic lifeline. Strategic estimates suggest that without the steady passage of these oil tankers, the Iranian economy would completely collapse within five weeks…”

I then summarized what I believed was the simplest solution to end the war:

“Iranian cargo ships can be targeted for seizure by a US blockade of the Persian Gulf well away from the narrow waters of the Hormuz. The ships could be destroyed, but I suspect the Department of Defense will try to avoid oil spills and ecological disasters. Instead, the best option is to capture Iran’s tankers and then redirect the oil to countries in danger of shortages.

Iran has the option of shutting off GPS tracking for their vessels (shadow fleet), but this would not help them maneuver past a comprehensive US blockade. In other words, I argue that the US could turn the tables on Iran and use their reliance on the Hormuz against them.

With Iran’s economy in shambles, they will no longer be able to purchase missiles or drones for resupply from Russia and China. They won’t be able to pay for logistic resources for their military and they won’t be able to contain public unrest. The Iranians would be forced to negotiate and the war would be over quickly with minimal risk to US troops.”

For now, the US is not seizing Iran’s tankers and is merely sending them back to where they came from. However, it would seem that the Trump Administration and their military advisers have come to the same basic conclusions I did.

For years I have expressed my concerns about a potential conflict in Iran, largely because of the precarious global economic risks associated with mass energy shortages caused by a closure of the Hormuz, which transits around 25% of the world’s energy exports. That said, I do not care about “picking sides” when it comes to Israel or Iran.

This debate is irrelevant and designed, I think, to divide US conservatives over ancient tribal vendettas that do not involve us. I don’t care about the Israeli government or “Zionism” and I certainly don’t care what happens to the theocratic and tyrannical Muslim regime in Iran. We have much more important things to think about.

What matters to me is how the US and the American people are affected by geopolitical events. There has been endless debate on what the war is really about, whether it be Iranian nukes, Israeli schemes, Saudi schemes, control of global oil markets, etc. (I think every action the Trump Administration has take so far from Venezuela to Iran has largely been designed to contain China). In any case, a long term closure of the Hormuz will eventually result in market cascades and a stagflationary crisis.

What matters now is ending the war as quickly and decisively as possible without leaving the Homuz and 25% of global energy exports under Iran’s control. After that, people can wrestle over the “moral and constitutional” quandary to their heart’s content.

First, I think it’s vitally important to address some lies and disinformation being spread by propagandists and foreign agents online about the US blockade, so let’s quickly go down the list…

Lie #1: The US Is Blocking All Ships Traveling Through The Strait

This is false. The US is only blocking ships coming from Iranian ports. All other ships have been allowed to pass without incident. This lie is being spread by disinfo agents all over social media and it is also being spread by foreign governments from the UK to France to China. This, to me, says A LOT about the true agenda of these countries, given that they said little or nothing about Iran locking down the strait.

Lie #2: Chinese Vessels Have Broken The Blockade And The US Is Afraid

Nope. All Chinese vessels coming from Iranian ports have been turned away and any vessels coming from alternative ports have been allowed to pass. At the time this article is being published, only one ship from an Iranian port has allegedly slipped through the blockade, though the story on this ship might be fabricated. All other Iranian ships have been repelled.

Lie #3: The Blockade Puts US Naval Ships At Serious Risk

No, it does the opposite. US ships have no need to traverse the narrow Hormuz to blockade it. All they have to do is wait outside of it and turn back Iranian tankers that approach. No mines, no missiles, no drones, no tiny attack boats, nothing Iran has the ability to deploy has much of a chance of harming the US Navy. In fact, reports indicate ships like the USS Abraham Lincoln (an aircraft carrier) have already been targeted hundreds of times by Iran with no damage taken.

There is nothing Iran can do about a comprehensive blockade.

Lie #4: Iran Is Used To Sanctions And Can Hold Out Longer Than The US

No, they can’t. Only 7% of energy exports going to the US travel through the Hormuz. Iran’s entire economy hangs by a thin thread and that thread is oil exports to countries like China or Vietnam.

Iran is reportedly losing around $430 million each day that their ships remain stuck in the strait, and they have already taken around $270 billion in infrastructure damages. Iran pays for new weapons and military logistics with oil revenues. Their soldiers are paid in part with oil revenues. They mitigate civil unrest with oil revenues.

I suspect that the blockade will force Iran back into negotiations within a couple weeks. That’s how little time they have left.

Lie #5: Iran Has Alternative Ways To Bypass The Blockade

No, they don’t. Overland routes without ample pipelines are no substitute for the ease of oil tanker shipments. Even if they did have such pipelines, those lines could be easily destroyed.

By extension, as Iran’s oil exports stack up they will quickly run out of storage space, which means they will have to shut down drilling. This would cause significant damage to their oil infrastructure within weeks due to pressure differentials.

Recent news indicates that Iran has already halted all petrochemical exports until further notice. If true, this proves that the blockade is highly effective.

Lie #6: The Chinese Will Intervene And Force The Strait To Reopen

As noted, the strait is not closed. Only Iranian ports are closed. Furthermore, China has stayed away from direct intervention in the Hormuz because they simply don’t have the naval capacity to square off with the US even if they wanted to.

Keep in mind, only a week ago the Chinese government vetoed a UN resolution to reopen the strait when they thought Iran was going to control it. The CCP is impotent and they can do nothing.

Lie #7: The US Is Losing All Its Allies Over The Blockade

Wrong. What the blockade (and the war in general) is doing is exposing the countries which were pretending to be our allies when it was convenient. I examined this problem in my last article “The US Separation From Europe And NATO Is Long Overdue”, and this brings me to my final point on the war.

The fact that the European elites are suddenly so concerned with the US blockade, enough to call for a “coalition” to reopen the strait and “circumvent” the US, tells us all we need to know. I continue to believe that the globalists in these nations have been feeding off the US while at the same time organizing a “multicultural alliance” behind the scenes – A socialist new world order to supplant western civilization and leave the US behind as a husk.

Part of this agenda clearly involves a partnership with Islamic fundamentalists as a goon squad to oppress native western populations. This is why the elites have flooded Europe with third world migrants – Ignoring the concerns of citizens and even arresting people who speak out.

This is also why the Pope is so adamant to call for a Muslim/Christian pact (while he blatantly ignores the fact that Europeans have been terrorized by Muslim immigrants for over a decade). Let’s not forget that during the pandemic lockdowns, the Vatican joined with the globalists to form the Council for Inclusive Capitalism (run by Lynn Forester de Rothschild). Modern-era Popes are not friends to conservatives or Christians, but I plan to go into that problem in my next article.

The blockade, I believe, is so effective that it has struck fear in Iran, fear in China, and fear in the liberal order in Europe which was counting on the war to drag on for months or years. Look at how angry they all are that Trump flipped the script on the Hormuz? Why all the emotion and irrational hand wringing after the strait has been opened to MORE ships and oil traffic? Why all the panic when oil prices are falling? It doesn’t make sense unless they WANT the US to fail.

Regardless of how you might feel personally about the Iran war, it is undeniable that the situation has revealed many of our supposed allies as enemies. In reality, they were always enemies. The only thing that has changed is that the truth is finally out in the open.

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