Over the years, the US and its allies tried extensively to sanction Iran’s petrochemicals sector into submission through corporate blacklisting, broker interdiction and secondary restrictions. These efforts appear to have failed.
“Last year, more than 2k parts required by the petrochemical industry which had previously been imported were localized by Academic Center for Education, Culture & Research (ACECR) technologists,” senior ACECR official Hamid Saberfarzam has revealed.
“The technical drawings and final books for these components have also been completed and delivered to the petrochemical industry, paving the way for their mass production by domestic manufacturers,” Saberfarzam said.
Iran’s petrochemicals breakthrough is just one component of its “Resistance Economy” ideology, which promotes self-sufficiency across key strategic sectors including:
Defense (missiles, radar, drones, air defenses, etc)
Industrial producer goods, including core inputs like steel, cement, glass and insulation materials
Electricity and power infrastructure
Refined petroleum
Food (85-90% food security achieved to date)
Upstream oil and gas equipment
Pharmaceuticals and medical supplies
Passenger and heavy vehicles (~60-80% sufficiency – ~60-95% localization)
An array of consumer goods, from refrigerators and washing machines to household electronics
Besides industry, Iran is also a scientific powerhouse, ranking in the top five globally in the Australian Strategic Policy Institute’s Critical Technology Tracker in fields from smart, advanced, composite and nanoscale materials, to antibiotics and air-independent propulsion.
August 2, 2026
Posted by aletho |
Economics | Iran |
Comments Off on Iran’s Petrochemical Industry Turns Sanctions Into Domestic Manufacturing Boom
The US military’s accelerated withdrawal from its base in Erbil, officially described as a scheduled redeployment, comes after Iranian precision strikes destroyed air-defense apparatus, including Patriot air-defense systems stationed there, a development supported by satellite imagery that has received limited attention in much of Western media coverage.
The hasty and unplanned withdrawal of American occupation forces from Iraq’s Kurdistan region has taken place amid a series of Iranian retaliatory strikes that have reshaped the security environment and military calculations in Iraq and across the region.
Media reports indicate that US military convoys have been moving from Erbil toward neighboring countries in recent days, with a significant portion of American troops and heavy equipment already withdrawn from the military compound near Erbil International Airport.
The official explanation, promoted by regional officials and reflected in Western reporting, presents the move as a routine redeployment consistent with Washington’s obligation to remove all US forces from Iraq by the September 30 deadline agreed upon with Baghdad.
However, this account does not address a key factor behind the reported withdrawal: the large-scale destruction of Patriot air-defense systems that had served as a central element of US force protection in the Iraqi Kurdistan region.
Satellite imagery dated July 16 and July 24 provide clinching evidence that Iranian drone and missile strikes targeted and destroyed Patriot launchers at Erbil International Airport. Despite this, the imagery has received limited coverage in mainstream Western media.
The removal of these systems reflects not merely a planned redeployment but an acknowledgment that the air-defense assets had become increasingly vulnerable in the face of Iran’s precision-strike capabilities.
Evidence of Patriot system destruction
Satellite imagery captured on July 16 and analyzed by independent observers shows a US Army Patriot air-defense launcher at Erbil International Airport destroyed following an Iranian drone strike in response to the US military aggression against southern Iran.
The imagery shows significant damage to a Patriot PAC-3 system, with smoke visible at the reported impact site, rendering it completely dysfunctional.
The strike was attributed to Shahed-136 one-way attack drones launched by the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) Aerospace Force – loitering munitions that have demonstrated the cutting-edge ability to challenge advanced and multi-layered air-defense networks.
A second strike on July 24 followed, with additional satellite imagery indicating the destruction of another component of the same Patriot air-defense battery.
A fire reported at Erbil International Airport was linked to damage involving one or more Patriot launchers. Images from the aftermath have been described by military analysts and OSINT researchers as evidence of a precision strike that damaged one of Washington’s most advanced defensive systems and highlighted the challenges posed by Iranian drone capabilities.
The IRGC Aerospace Force announced the destruction of a Patriot air-defense system at Erbil as part of the 27th wave of Operation Nasr-2, carried out under the code phrase “Ya Aba Saleh al-Mahdi, Adrikni.”
In its statement, the IRGC said the operation involved a “surprise” strike that also destroyed a US surveillance balloon and targeted facilities used to accommodate American military personnel.
Declining effectiveness of American air defenses
The devastating strikes against Patriot systems in Erbil exposed vulnerabilities that have been a growing concern for American military planners throughout the war of aggression against Iran.
The Patriot batteries, which have an operational range of between 100 and 160 kilometers, were originally deployed to protect American occupation forces but had become targets themselves.
While US interceptors succeeded in preventing some attacks on the Erbil compound, other attacks proved sufficient to disable the most advanced air-defense systems in the American inventory.
The near-total destruction of Patriot launchers in Erbil was part of a broader pattern of Iranian military successes against American air-defense infrastructure across the region, which prompted war hawks in Washington to look for alternatives and forced Trump to end the bombing campaign.
A study documented the diminishing resources available to American forces, revealing that 55 percent of the Patriot stockpile had been depleted by April, with a further 10 percent reduction following the collapse of the US-Iranian ceasefire in recent months.
The Foreign Policy Research Institute estimated that the United States produces around 600 Patriot interceptors annually, noting that existing stockpiles had already been strained by transfers to Ukraine prior to the escalation of unprovoked hostilities against Iran.
The Iranian success against Patriot systems reflects the inherent asymmetry in modern drone warfare, where expensive air-defense interceptors are depleted by relatively low-cost loitering munitions.
The Shahed-136 drones used in the Erbil strikes are estimated to be thousands of dollars each, while each Patriot interceptor costs millions, making it extremely costly for the aggressor.
This economic imbalance, combined with the demonstrated vulnerability of high-end air-defense systems to drone saturation tactics, has created a fundamental challenge for American force protection that cannot be resolved through redeployment alone.
Accelerated withdrawal: facts on the ground
The destruction of Patriot systems at Erbil appears to have been the catalyst for the accelerated withdrawal of American forces from Iraqi Kurdistan, according to military sources.
The US military began drawing down its last remaining forces stationed near Erbil International Airport, with the pullout starting in the final week of July and continuing at the time of filing this report.
The bulk of US troops and heavy equipment have already been removed from the compound, according to the Al-Monitor website, which claims that all Patriot anti-missile batteries have been redeployed to an undisclosed destination.
However, sources told the Press TV website that the Patriot anti-missile batteries don’t exist anymore at the highly fortified base, which was the main trigger for the hasty military withdrawal.
The Pentagon has declined to confirm or deny the reports of its military’s withdrawal, citing “operational security reasons” for refusing to discuss specific movements.
They also remain tight-lipped about the existing condition of air-defense systems, including Patriot, and how they intend to protect their troops in other regional countries with American bases.
This evasive response has done little to reassure Kurdish authorities, who have been left to interpret the withdrawal without clear guidance from their American allies.
Attack context: sustained Iranian pressure on Iraqi Kurdistan
The withdrawal of American forces from Erbil must be understood within the broader context of Iranian military pressure on the Kurdistan Region throughout July 2026.
Iranian forces maintained sustained retaliatory attacks on US military infrastructure in Iraqi Kurdistan, with the bulk of attacks targeting armed Kurdish militant groups based in the region as well as the US military compound near Erbil International Airport.
The attacks on the Erbil compound specifically targeted the Patriot systems and other military assets, with the IRGC launching multiple waves of Operation Nasr-2 that pounded US-run bases in Kuwait, Bahrain, Jordan, and the Iraqi Kurdistan region.
Local media outlets reported that the Kurdistan Region was subjected to dozens of drone and missile attacks in July, with the city of Erbil facing repeated air-raid warnings and interception attempts.
Iranian and Kurdish sources confirmed renewed strikes against infrastructure associated with coalition forces, with the attacks focused on operational infrastructure rather than saturation bombardment.
The attacks on Erbil International Airport included strikes on a ground support station and maintenance facility belonging to US surveillance aircraft, along with the destruction of the Patriot systems.
This precision targeting reflects the sophistication of Iranian intelligence gathering and the ability to identify and strike high-value American assets with accuracy.
The IRGC’s statement that “almost all” US military infrastructure in Erbil had been destroyed during the conflict, while not independently verified, is consistent with the subsequent American withdrawal.
Regional realignment: from Iraq to the Persian Gulf
The withdrawal from Iraqi Kurdistan is part of a broader American reassessment of its military posture across the region, driven by the recognition that large, permanent military presences have become liabilities rather than strategic assets.
The priority for the US has also shifted toward Persian Gulf states, particularly Kuwait and Jordan.
The United States has been reviewing the extent of its military presence in Kuwait following developments in the war against Iran, with reports indicating that analysts believe “a large, permanent military presence in Kuwait is no longer vital or militarily wise”.
This reassessment has been driven by the reality that US installations and bases have been repeatedly targeted by Iran during the war, with the Patriot systems themselves becoming magnets for Iranian strikes rather than reliable defensive shields.
The destruction of Patriot systems at Erbil ahead of the troop withdrawal has raised further questions about US interceptor stockpiles and how the military seeks to protect troops elsewhere in the region.
The successful Iranian strikes on Patriot systems in Erbil demonstrated that these assets are vulnerable to drone attacks, making their deployment to other locations a matter of risk assessment rather than simple repositioning.
Strategic implications: victory for Iranian deterrence
The American withdrawal from Iraqi Kurdistan, following the destruction of Patriot systems by Iranian precision strikes, represents a significant victory for the Axis of Resistance and a demonstration of the effectiveness of Iranian deterrence strategy, according to defense analysts.
The IRGC’s official statement on the Erbil strikes warned that “should the unlawful and bullying US regime continue its hostile actions, it will face different and stronger responses,” a warning that has been validated by the American decision to withdraw rather than reinforce its position in Iraqi Kurdistan.
The Kurdish Regional Government, which has benefited from the American military umbrella while not being the primary target of Iranian attacks, now faces an uncertain future without the protection of US air-defense systems, including Patriot.
The withdrawal also carries significant implications for the broader regional balance of power. The US, which has maintained a military presence in Iraq for over two decades, is now completing a withdrawal that has been accelerated by Iranian military pressure rather than strategic planning.
The annihilation of Patriot systems from Erbil, and the subsequent withdrawal of American occupation forces, represents an acknowledgment that these systems were no longer capable of protecting American personnel in the face of Iranian precision strike capabilities.
The official narrative of a scheduled redeployment, analysts opine, cannot mask the reality that the American position in Iraqi Kurdistan became untenable following the Iranian retaliatory strikes in recent weeks, which demonstrated that even the most advanced American air-defense systems cannot withstand sustained Iranian drone warfare.
In an unusual statement given the turbulent relations of recent years, Brazilian President Lula defended the rearmament and modernization of Brazil’s Armed Forces. According to him, Brazil must have strong armed forces, even if it does not intend to use them, but as deterrent forces to prevent direct interference from foreign powers in the country.
The statement took place at an event organized under the auspices of Avibras Aeroco, an important strategic company in the Brazilian defense sector. Avibras is best known for producing the Astros anti-aircraft systems, which are operated by Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Iraq, Bahrain, Angola, Indonesia, Malaysia and, naturally, Brazil itself. In addition to the Astros, Avibras also produces various types of armored personnel carriers and some other anti-aircraft equipment such as the SKYFIRE and the EDT-FILA. The company is also developing an anti-ship missile, a laser-guided missile, a fiber-optic guided missile, an air-to-air missile and an upgrade to the Astros.
Such a high level of activity on Avibras’s part is notable because the company only resumed its operations in May-June 2026, after more than 4 years of total operational standstill. Avibras’s problems began during the pandemic era (which leads us to reflect once again on the role of health crisis management in the deindustrialization of numerous countries and the destruction of their middle classes). While most relevant defense industry companies worldwide are subsidized or receive some type of government support, Brazil had been treating its companies in this sector as private enterprises like any other for decades. Thus, with reduced orders and the impossibility of travel, Avibras gradually became unable to pay its debts, salaries and cover its operational costs. In 2022, all activities are halted and a strike begins over more than 1 year of overdue wages.
Meanwhile, foreign companies (especially from Australia, Saudi Arabia and China) showed interest in acquiring Avibras, which could result in an uncomfortable and uninteresting situation, especially if Avibras were acquired by Australia.
A mobilization of patriotic sectors of Brazilian society, however, throughout this entire period, managed to exert enough pressure on the government to convince it of Avibras’s importance, leading to new contracts with the Armed Forces, a bankruptcy protection agreement and the end of the workers’ strike.
The Avibras case – which points to a renewal of interest in military affairs on the part of the Brazilian State – is not isolated, however.
Brazil’s military spending rose about 13% in 2025, but the country remained in 21st place globally – a ridiculous level given the country’s size and its international leadership aspirations. For 2026, a 6% increase was forecast, and at the end of 2025, approximately 6 billion extra dollars were also approved, due to budgetary limits for specific modernization projects.
The modernization projects in question fall within the logic of the Transformation Policy, a document built from observation of the Russian special military operation in Ukraine and recent conflicts in the Middle East. Based on this document, Brazil’s Armed Forces defined as part of their objectives the expansion of military drone use, the development of anti-drone systems, the national-level integration of sensor and radar systems and the expansion of cyber warfare capabilities.
Specifically, the project aimed at integrating and connecting military sensors, radars, satellites, aircraft and electronic systems is SISFRON (Integrated Border Monitoring System), which is set to receive approximately 600 million dollars. The drones used in this system will be from Israel’s Elbit.
Another program receiving historic attention from Brazil is Prosub, aimed at developing conventional submarines and nuclear-powered submarines, the result of a partnership with France dating back to 2008. Needless to say, for 14 years of cooperation this Brazil-France partnership has little to show so far, but there are promises that this year and next summer will see the delivery and launching of submarines.
The Brazilian Navy also expanded its fleet through the incorporation of a new frigate – to NATO standards – developed jointly by Brazil’s Embraer and Germany’s ThyssenKrupp.
The Air Force’s focus, in turn, is the Gripen Program, the result of a long-standing cooperation between Brazil and Sweden, which is only now yielding results. The Gripen fighters are assembled in Brazilian factories, and Brazil recently set aside a budget of approximately 400 million dollars for this program, which eventually envisions a fleet of 56 modern fighters.
There is also the recent formalization of a contract with the Italian CIO consortium for the acquisition of Centauro II armored vehicles, for use on Brazil’s borders, with a budget of approximately 1 billion dollars to acquire approximately 100 combat vehicles.
It is important to note that the fact that Brazil has understood the need to improve its Armed Forces is reassuring, and we imagine that the U.S. attack on Venezuela was one of the elements that reinforced this conviction and facilitated the acceleration of plans and the expansion of budgets.
It is also noteworthy that few of the projects and plans under development involve the U.S., which is peculiar considering the umbilical ties that exist between the U.S. Armed Forces and Brazil’s Armed Forces since World War II. Recently, the Commander of the Brazilian Navy, Marcos Olsen, reaffirmed the commitment to a doctrinal alignment of Brazil’s Armed Forces with the U.S. in an interview with CNN. But now, Brazil is preferring not to acquire its equipment or develop joint projects with the U.S., with the exception of the recent plan to acquire outdated (and used) Black Hawk helicopters.
It should also be noted that most of these partnerships developed by Brazil involve technology transfer, which is always of interest to Brazil and has guided Brasília’s international cooperation decisions. Agreements with the U.S. rarely involve technology transfer.
At the same time, however, it is striking that all the projects involve cooperation with NATO countries or their close allies, such as the State of Israel. Even with technology transfer, cooperation with countries like France and Israel raises concerns.
France is a country already notorious for handing over Argentine military secrets to its British allies during the Falklands War. Meanwhile, Israel has a history of placing backdoors in all electronic systems sold to foreign countries since the PROMIS case of the 1980s.
This is, then, clearly a crossroads situation in which the Brazilian government’s stance of not taking a geopolitical position and maintaining a certain “neutrality” facilitates the strengthening of ties with countries that are very clearly involved in international conflicts on the globalist and Atlanticist side of the equation.
Israel is at the heart of Washington’s long-running tensions with Colombia and its outgoing President Gustavo Petro, Foreign Minister Rosa Yolanda Villavicencio has told RT.
In an exclusive interview aired on Sunday, Villavicencio insisted that the decisive factor behind US sanctions on Petro was not his alleged failure to combat drug trafficking but rather his outspoken support for Palestine and repeated accusations that Israel was committing genocide in Gaza.
Relations between Bogota and Washington – Colombia’s largest trading partner – steadily deteriorated during Petro’s presidency over US policy in Latin America, particularly toward Venezuela and Cuba, regional anti-drug efforts, and broader geopolitical differences, most notably Petro’s outspoken support for Palestine and criticism of Israel. This culminated in Washington sanctioning Petro last year, accusing him of “allowing drug cartels to flourish” and “refusing to stop” narcotics trafficking.
US President Donald Trump called Petro an “illegal drug leader,” and openly backed right-wing presidential candidate Abelardo de la Espriella, who campaigned on restoring closer ties with Washington, over Petro ally and left-wing Senator Ivan Cepeda in the election earlier this year.
Villavicencio rejected Washington’s justification for sanctioning Petro, arguing that his administration had delivered record results in combating drug trafficking.
“We are talking about record-breaking seizures of cocaine, exceeding the figures achieved by any previous administration,” she said, adding that authorities had dismantled cocaine laboratories, extradited suspects, confiscated criminal assets, and kept the US informed of those efforts.
“President [Petro’s] inclusion on the OFAC list [is] in no way related to drug trafficking. These measures were taken against the president because of his firm and principled stance when he openly described what is happening in Palestine as genocide,” Villavicencio declared. “That was the real reason.”
Petro severed diplomatic ties with Israel in 2024 over its military campaign in Gaza, repeatedly accusing West Jerusalem of committing genocide and becoming one of Israel’s fiercest critics in Latin America.
He also suspended all Israeli arms purchases, ending Colombia’s long-standing reliance on Israeli military technology, banned coal exports to Israel, and later expelled Israel’s remaining diplomats after an aid flotilla carrying Colombian activists was intercepted by Israeli forces. Colombia also formally joined South Africa’s genocide case against Israel at the International Court of Justice (ICJ).
Petro is due to hand power to President-elect de la Espriella on August 7. He has said he will not attend the inauguration, challenged the legitimacy of the election, and alleged that Israel manipulated Colombia’s presidential vote by hacking election servers. Apart from aligning Colombia more closely with Washington, de la Espriella has pledged to restore full diplomatic ties with Israel, effectively reversing nearly every major foreign-policy decision of the Petro administration.
Meanwhile, the Gaza conflict remains unresolved despite recent political developments. Earlier this week, Hamas said it had accepted Trump’s Board of Peace proposal for phased disarmament, provided Israel fulfills its commitments, including a phased military withdrawal, humanitarian access, and progress on reconstruction.
Israel has yet to formally endorse the proposal, however, insisting that any withdrawal can only begin after Hamas fully disarms, leaving the process deadlocked. Israeli forces have meanwhile continued operations across Gaza, with Palestinian officials reporting at least one person killed and several others wounded in strikes on Friday. … Video interview
Media reports claiming that the Islamic Republic of Iran has agreed to a plan to reopen the Strait of Hormuz are false, and no change has been made to the country’s policy regarding the strategic waterway, according to a report.
Foreign media outlets, citing Israeli journalist Barak Ravid, have claimed earlier that Iran had accepted a proposal under which ships would enter the Persian Gulf through Iranian territorial waters and leave through Omani territorial waters.
Fars News Agency, citing a source close to Iran’s nuclear negotiating team, rejected those claims, with the source saying, “The Islamic Republic of Iran has reached no agreement on reopening the Strait of Hormuz, and the reports published in this regard are false.”
According to Fars, a military source also dismissed the claims, saying they were entirely unfounded.
“As long as the hostile actions and acts of malice by the United States continue, the Strait of Hormuz will remain closed,” the military source was quoted as saying.
“Passage will only be possible through the designated route, in coordination with the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps Navy and after obtaining permission to transit the Strait of Hormuz. Otherwise, other routes are unsafe, and vessels attempting to use them will certainly encounter incidents.”
The source further emphasized that reports claiming that Iran had agreed to any plan to reopen the Strait of Hormuz were “baseless” and that no decision or policy change had been made regarding the strategic waterway.
It came after US President Donald Trump said he had canceled declared attacks on Iran, following warnings from Tehran that any new US or Israeli aggression would face strong retaliation.
In a post on Truth Social on Saturday, Trump claimed that the US was “locked and loaded” and prepared to launch a military assault against Iran, describing the potential aggression as involving levels of military power “not seen since World War II.”
The latest round of war against Iran began on February 28, when US and Israeli forces launched large-scale strikes on Iranian territory.
Iran responded with daily waves of missiles and drones targeting US and Israeli assets across the region, while closing the Strait of Hormuz.
Iran and the US later signed the Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) on June 17 in an effort to end the war across all fronts.
However, renewed US military aggression against Iran in recent weeks has prompted Tehran to resume missile and drone strikes against US assets in the region and close the Strait of Hormuz once again.
That bottle of sunscreen in your beach bag may be doing more harm than good. New research reveals the hidden dangers lurking in conventional sunscreens and highlights safer, natural alternatives that can protect your skin without toxic side effects.
For decades, we’ve been told that slathering on sunscreen is one of the best ways to protect our skin from the sun’s harmful rays. However, mounting evidence suggests that many conventional sunscreens contain ingredients that may be hazardous to our health and the environment. From hormone-disrupting chemicals to potentially carcinogenic nanoparticles, the risks associated with common sunscreen ingredients are cause for serious concern.
At the same time, researchers have discovered that many natural plant oils offer significant sun protection, often rivaling or exceeding the SPF of chemical sunscreens. These botanical alternatives not only shield skin from UV damage, but also nourish and moisturize without introducing synthetic toxins into the body.
This article will explore the dangers lurking in your sunscreen bottle, examine promising research on herbal oil alternatives, and provide practical guidance for safer sun protection. By understanding the risks and exploring natural options, you can make informed choices to safeguard your skin and overall health.
The Trouble with Conventional Sunscreens
Chemical Cocktails: Questionable Ingredients in Popular Sunscreens
Many best-selling sunscreens contain a slew of synthetic chemicals that act as UV filters, preservatives, fragrances and more. Some of the most concerning ingredients include:
Oxybenzone: This common chemical UV filter has been shown to disrupt hormones, cause allergic reactions, and damage coral reefs. Studies have found oxybenzone in 97% of Americans tested.1
Octinoxate: Another chemical filter linked to hormone disruption and environmental damage. It’s been banned in Hawaii and Key West due to its impact on coral.2
Homosalate: An endocrine disruptor that may increase the absorption of pesticides through the skin.3
Octocrylene: Can produce free radicals that may damage cells and accelerate skin aging when exposed to UV light.4
Parabens: Synthetic preservatives with estrogenic activity, detected in breast cancer tumors.5
Fragrance: Often contains undisclosed phthalates linked to reproductive issues and cancer.6
The Nanoparticle Problem: Are Mineral Sunscreens Any Safer?
In response to concerns over chemical sunscreens, many consumers have turned to mineral-based formulas containing zinc oxide or titanium dioxide. While these ingredients are generally considered safer, the increasing use of nanoparticles in mineral sunscreens has introduced new risks:
Potential for cellular damage: Nanoparticles may be small enough to penetrate skin cells and cause oxidative damage to DNA.7
Respiratory concerns: Inhaling nanoparticles from spray sunscreens could potentially cause lung inflammation or damage.8
Environmental impact: Like chemical UV filters, nanoparticles can accumulate in waterways and harm aquatic life.9
Systemic absorption: A 2010 study found that nanoparticle zinc oxide from sunscreen was detectable in human blood and urine after topical application.10
The Skin Absorption Dilemma
One of the biggest issues with conventional sunscreens is their potential for systemic absorption through the skin. Multiple studies have detected common sunscreen chemicals in blood, urine, and breast milk after topical use.11,12
This is concerning because the skin is not merely a barrier, but a permeable organ capable of absorbing substances into the bloodstream. In fact, transdermal drug delivery systems take advantage of this property to administer medications through the skin.
When it comes to sunscreen, we’re essentially slathering a chemical cocktail over a large surface area of our bodies, often repeatedly throughout the day. This creates significant potential for absorption and accumulation of questionable ingredients in our tissues over time.
Understanding SPF: Debunking the High Number Myth
Before exploring natural alternatives, it’s important to understand what Sun Protection Factor (SPF) really means. Many consumers believe that higher SPF numbers offer dramatically better protection, but the reality is more nuanced:
SPF measures how much longer skin covered with sunscreen takes to burn compared to unprotected skin. For example, SPF 2 means you can stay in the sun twice as long before burning compared to wearing no sunscreen.
However, the percentage of UVB rays blocked doesn’t increase linearly with SPF numbers:
SPF 2 blocks 50% of UVB rays
SPF 15 blocks about 93% of UVB rays
SPF 30 blocks about 97% of UVB rays
SPF 50 blocks about 98% of UVB rays
As you can see, the difference between SPF 30 and SPF 50 is only 1% in terms of UVB protection. This reveals a common misconception that very high SPF values are necessary for adequate sun protection. In reality, even a relatively low SPF of 15 blocks 93% of UVB rays, and an SPF of just 2 cuts UVB exposure in half.
While higher SPFs do offer incrementally more protection and may be beneficial for those with very fair or sensitive skin, the difference is not as dramatic as many people assume. This understanding is crucial when considering natural alternatives, which may have lower SPF values but still offer significant protection.
Environmental and Health Consequences
Beyond personal health concerns, conventional sunscreens pose serious risks to the environment:
Coral reef destruction: Oxybenzone and octinoxate have been implicated in coral bleaching, leading to bans in reef-adjacent areas.13
Aquatic toxicity: Sunscreen chemicals can accumulate in lakes and oceans, harming fish and other marine life.14
Soil contamination: UV filters have been detected in agricultural soils, with unknown impacts on crops and ecosystems.15
The cumulative effects of widespread sunscreen use are just beginning to be understood. As these chemicals build up in our bodies and the environment, they may contribute to a range of health and ecological issues:
Hormone disruption and reproductive problems
Increased risk of certain cancers
Allergies and skin irritation
Coral reef die-offs and marine ecosystem collapse
Contamination of water supplies
Natural Alternatives: Herbal Oils as Sunscreen
In light of the risks associated with conventional sunscreens, many consumers are seeking safer, more natural alternatives. Emerging research suggests that certain plant-based oils may offer significant sun protection without the drawbacks of synthetic chemicals.
A groundbreaking 2010 study published in Pharmacognosy Research evaluated the SPF (sun protection factor) of various herbal oils commonly used in cosmetics. The researchers used a spectrophotometric method to determine the in vitro SPF values of both volatile and non-volatile herbal oils.16
Their findings revealed impressive sun protection potential in many natural oils:
These results are particularly noteworthy because many of the oils tested demonstrated significant UV protection levels. For example, olive oil with 87.5% UV protection (SPF 8) is substantial considering it’s a natural, non-toxic alternative. Also, consider the vast number of therapeutic actions olive oil demonstrates in the scientific literature.
It’s important to remember that even oils with lower protection values, such as tea tree oil at 50% (SPF 2), still cut UVB exposure in half compared to unprotected skin. This level of protection, combined with other sun-safety measures, can contribute significantly to overall sun safety without relying on potentially harmful synthetic chemicals.
Benefits of Herbal Oil Sunscreens
Natural plant oils offer several advantages over conventional chemical sunscreens:
Broad-spectrum protection: Many oils contain compounds that shield against both UVA and UVB rays.
Antioxidant activity: Plant oils are rich in antioxidants that can neutralize free radicals and combat UV-induced skin damage.
Skin-nourishing properties: Unlike synthetic sunscreens that can be drying, natural oils moisturize and support skin health.
No toxic buildup: Plant-based oils are biodegradable and do not accumulate in tissues or the environment like synthetic chemicals.
Multiple health benefits: Many oils offer additional skincare perks like anti-aging, anti-inflammatory, and wound-healing properties.
Environmentally friendly: Natural oils do not contribute to coral bleaching or aquatic toxicity.
Spotlight on Top Performing Oils
Olive Oil (87.5% UV protection, SPF 8)
Rich in polyphenols and vitamin E, olive oil offers potent antioxidant and anti-inflammatory benefits. Its high oleic acid content helps maintain skin moisture and elasticity.
Coconut Oil (85.7% UV protection, SPF 7)
Known for its moisturizing and antimicrobial properties, coconut oil creates a protective barrier on the skin. It also contains lauric acid, which has been shown to have photoprotective effects.17
Peppermint Oil (85.7% UV protection, SPF 7)
This refreshing essential oil not only offers sun protection but also provides a cooling sensation that can help soothe sunburned skin. Its menthol content has analgesic properties.
Revered in Ayurvedic medicine, tulsi oil boasts powerful antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, and adaptogenic properties. It may help combat UV-induced oxidative stress and support overall skin health.
Practical Applications and Considerations
While herbal oils show promise as natural sunscreens, it’s important to note that their protection levels are generally lower than those of high-SPF commercial products. To maximize sun protection when using natural oils:
Layer multiple oils: Combining oils with complementary properties can enhance overall sun protection.
Reapply frequently: Natural oils may not be as water-resistant as synthetic sunscreens, so reapply often, especially after swimming or sweating.
Use in conjunction with other sun-safety measures: Seek shade, wear protective clothing, and limit sun exposure during peak hours.
Consider adding zinc oxide: For higher protection, some people mix non-nano zinc oxide powder into their preferred oil base.
Patch test first: As with any new skincare product, test oils on a small area to check for allergic reactions or irritation.
Be aware of photosensitivity: Some essential oils, particularly citrus oils, can increase sun sensitivity. Use caution and dilute appropriately.
Realistic Expectations for Natural UV Protection
When using herbal oils for sun protection, it’s crucial to have realistic expectations. While these natural alternatives may not match the high protection numbers of commercial sunscreens, they still offer meaningful defense. An oil with 75% UV protection (SPF 4), for instance, represents a significant reduction in UV exposure. By layering oils, reapplying frequently, and combining their use with other sun-safety measures, you can achieve effective protection without resorting to synthetic chemicals. Remember, any reduction in UV exposure is beneficial for skin health, and these natural oils offer that protection along with additional skincare benefits.
The Petrochemical Problem: Why Slathering on Toxins is a Bad Idea
The widespread use of petrochemicals in personal care products, including sunscreens, raises serious health and environmental concerns. Here’s why coating our largest organ in fossil fuel derivatives is problematic:
Bioaccumulation and Body Burden
Petrochemicals are lipophilic, meaning they have an affinity for fats. This allows them to penetrate the skin easily and accumulate in fatty tissues throughout the body. Over time, this can lead to a significant toxic burden.
A 2011 study found that women who used mineral oil-based cosmetics had higher levels of mineral oil saturated hydrocarbons (MOSH) in their body fat compared to non-users. The researchers concluded that cosmetic products were likely a relevant source of MOSH contamination in the population.18
Endocrine Disruption
Many petrochemicals used in sunscreens and other personal care items are known or suspected endocrine disruptors. These compounds can interfere with hormone signaling, potentially leading to reproductive issues, developmental problems, and increased cancer risk.
For example, parabens, which are commonly used as preservatives in sunscreens, have been shown to mimic estrogen in the body. A 2004 study detected parabens in human breast tumors, raising concerns about their potential role in breast cancer development.19
Skin Irritation and Sensitization
Petroleum-derived ingredients can cause skin irritation, allergic reactions, and increased sensitivity in some individuals. This is particularly concerning for sunscreens, which are applied to large areas of skin and often used on children and those with sensitive skin.
A 2018 review in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology: In Practice found that up to 70% of people with sensitive skin reported adverse reactions to sunscreens, with chemical UV filters being common culprits.20
Environmental Contamination
When we use products containing petrochemicals, these substances don’t just affect our bodies – they also enter the environment. Sunscreen chemicals wash off in water, contaminating lakes, rivers, and oceans.
A 2015 study estimated that between 6,000 and 14,000 tons of sunscreen wash off into coral reef areas each year, with devastating effects on marine ecosystems.21
Fossil Fuel Dependence
The widespread use of petrochemicals in personal care products contributes to our overall dependence on fossil fuels. This not only perpetuates environmental damage from oil extraction and refining but also supports an industry with a vested interest in downplaying the risks of its products.
By choosing natural, plant-based alternatives, consumers can reduce their exposure to potentially harmful petrochemicals while supporting more sustainable and environmentally friendly practices.
Conclusion: Embracing Safer Sun Protection
As awareness grows about the potential risks of conventional sunscreens, the shift towards natural alternatives is gaining momentum. Herbal oils offer a promising solution, providing effective sun protection along with additional skin benefits, without introducing synthetic toxins into our bodies or the environment.
While more research is needed to fully understand the photoprotective properties of plant oils, the available evidence suggests they can be valuable tools in our sun safety arsenal. By combining the use of natural oils with sensible sun exposure habits, we can safeguard our skin health while minimizing our chemical burden.
Ultimately, the choice between conventional and natural sunscreens is a personal one. However, given the mounting concerns over petrochemical-based products, exploring safer alternatives is a wise investment in both personal and planetary health. As we continue to uncover the hidden costs of our chemical-laden lifestyles, returning to nature’s time-tested remedies may prove to be the smartest path forward.
References
1. Calafat, A. M., et al. “Concentrations of the Sunscreen Agent Benzophenone-3 in Residents of the United States: National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2003-2004.” Environmental Health Perspectives, vol. 116, no. 7, 2008, pp. 893-897.
2. Downs, C. A., et al. “Toxicopathological Effects of the Sunscreen UV Filter, Oxybenzone (Benzophenone-3), on Coral Planulae and Cultured Primary Cells and Its Environmental Contamination in Hawaii and the U.S. Virgin Islands.” Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, vol. 70, no. 2, 2016, pp. 265-288.
3. Krause, M., et al. “Sunscreens: Are They Beneficial for Health? An Overview of Endocrine Disrupting Properties of UV‐Filters.” International Journal of Andrology, vol. 35, no. 3, 2012, pp. 424-436.
4. Hanson, K. M., et al. “Sunscreen Enhancement of UV-Induced Reactive Oxygen Species in the Skin.” Free Radical Biology and Medicine, vol. 41, no. 8, 2006, pp. 1205-1212.
5. Darbre, P. D., et al. “Concentrations of Parabens in Human Breast Tumours.” Journal of Applied Toxicology, vol. 24, no. 1, 2004, pp. 5-13.
6. Heudorf, U., et al. “Phthalates: Toxicology and Exposure.” International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health, vol. 210, no. 5, 2007, pp. 623-634.
7. Shukla, R. K., et al. “ROS-Mediated Genotoxicity Induced by Titanium Dioxide Nanoparticles in Human Epidermal Cells.” Toxicology in Vitro, vol. 25, no. 1, 2011, pp. 231-241.
8. Grassian, V. H., et al. “Inflammatory Response of Mice to Manufactured Titanium Dioxide Nanoparticles: Comparison of Size Effects through Different Exposure Routes.” Nanotoxicology, vol. 1, no. 3, 2007, pp. 211-226.
9. Minetto, D., et al. “Ecotoxicity of Engineered TiO2 Nanoparticles to Saltwater Organisms: An Overview.” Environment International, vol. 88, 2016, pp. 60-72.
10. Gulson, B., et al. “Small Amounts of Zinc from Zinc Oxide Particles in Sunscreens Applied Outdoors Are Absorbed through Human Skin.” Toxicological Sciences, vol. 118, no. 1, 2010, pp. 140-149.
11. Janjua, N. R., et al. “Systemic Absorption of the Sunscreens Benzophenone-3, Octyl-Methoxycinnamate, and 3-(4-Methyl-Benzylidene) Camphor after Whole-Body Topical Application and Reproductive Hormone Levels in Humans.” Journal of Investigative Dermatology, vol. 123, no. 1, 2004, pp. 57-61.
12. Schlumpf, M., et al. “Exposure Patterns of UV Filters, Fragrances, Parabens, Phthalates, Organochlor Pesticides, PBDEs, and PCBs in Human Milk: Correlation of UV Filters with Use of Cosmetics.” Chemosphere, vol. 81, no. 10, 2010, pp. 1171-1183.
13. Danovaro, R., et al. “Sunscreens Cause Coral Bleaching by Promoting Viral Infections.” Environmental Health Perspectives, vol. 116, no. 4, 2008, pp. 441-447.
14. Giokas, D. L., et al. “Occurrence and Removal of Chemical UV Filters in Wastewater Treatment Plants.” Environmental Science and Pollution Research, vol. 22, no. 12, 2015, pp. 9089-9100.
15. Chen, F., et al. “Distribution and Accumulation of Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals and Pharmaceuticals in Wastewater Irrigated Soils in Hebei, China.” Environmental Pollution, vol. 159, no. 6, 2011, pp. 1490-1498.
16. Kaur, C. D., and Saraf, S. “In Vitro Sun Protection Factor Determination of Herbal Oils Used in Cosmetics.” Pharmacognosy Research, vol. 2, no. 1, 2010, pp. 22-25.
17. Korać, R. R., and Khambholja, K. M. “Potential of Herbs in Skin Protection from Ultraviolet Radiation.” Pharmacognosy Reviews, vol. 5, no. 10, 2011, pp. 164-173.
18. Concin, N., et al. “Mineral Oil Paraffins in Human Body Fat and Milk.” Food and Chemical Toxicology, vol. 46, no. 2, 2008, pp. 544-552.
19. Darbre, P. D., and Harvey, P. W. “Paraben Esters: Review of Recent Studies of Endocrine Toxicity, Absorption, Esterase and Human Exposure, and Discussion of Potential Human Health Risks.” Journal of Applied Toxicology, vol. 28, no. 5, 2008, pp. 561-578.
20. Rozas-Muñoz, E., et al. “Sensitive Skin: A Review of Prevalence, Pathogenesis, and Management.” Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology: In Practice, vol. 6, no. 6, 2018, pp. 1898-1908.
21. Downs, C. A., et al. “Toxicopathological Effects of the Sunscreen UV Filter, Oxybenzone (Benzophenone-3), on Coral Planulae and Cultured Primary Cells and Its Environmental Contamination in Hawaii and the U.S. Virgin Islands.” Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, vol. 70, no. 2, 2016, pp. 265-288.
In December 2007, Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine published a study by Ian Paul and colleagues at the Penn State College of Medicine. One hundred five children between the ages of two and eighteen, all with cough and runny nose of seven days or less, were randomized into three groups. One group received a single nocturnal dose of buckwheat honey. One received an age-appropriate dose of honey-flavored dextromethorphan, the leading over-the-counter cough suppressant in America, sold in many formulations under brand names including Robitussin, Delsym, Vicks, and NyQuil. The third received nothing.
Parents scored their children on cough frequency, cough severity, how bothersome the cough was, the child’s sleep quality, and their own sleep quality.
Honey improved every outcome measured. Dextromethorphan showed no statistically significant advantage over no treatment on any of them.¹
The comparison that mattered, the one the study was designed to run, put a spoon of honey against a mass-market pharmaceutical and found the honey better. The comparison the authors did not lead with, but which sat plainly in the pairwise data, put the mass-market pharmaceutical against nothing and found no measurable difference.
The Paul trial was partially double-blinded (honey cannot be blinded from taste), which is the obvious objection. A 2018 Cochrane review pooled the Paul study with later replications from Israel, Iran, and Brazil, all of which used various blinding designs, and reached the same conclusion. Honey outperforms no treatment. Honey outperforms dextromethorphan. It does so consistently.²,³
Six weeks after the Paul study appeared, on 17 January 2008, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued a Public Health Advisory recommending that over-the-counter cough and cold products not be used at all in children under the age of two, citing “serious and potentially life-threatening side effects” including convulsions, rapid heart rates, decreased consciousness, and death.⁴ The Centers for Disease Control had documented over fifteen hundred children under the age of two treated in emergency rooms in 2004 and 2005 for adverse events after receiving these products.⁵ Manufacturers voluntarily pulled infant formulations from the shelves before the advisory issued, and relabeled their remaining children’s products as not for use in children under four.⁶
Two facts arrived within weeks of each other. A peer-reviewed randomized trial found the leading OTC cough medicine indistinguishable from placebo. The FDA determined that its use had been killing children.
None of this was breaking news to anyone who owned a copy of Folk Medicine.
The recipe
D.C. Jarvis was a Vermont country doctor. For decades he cataloged the folk practices of his patients, most of them families who had farmed the same land for generations. His 1958 book Folk Medicine was a New York Times bestseller for over a year. Chapter nine gives the cough syrup as he recorded it:
Boil one lemon slowly for ten minutes. This softens the lemon so that more juice will be got out of it, and also softens the rind. Cut the lemon in two and extract the juice with a lemon squeezer. Put the juice into an ordinary drinking glass. Add two tablespoonfuls of glycerine… Stir the glycerine and lemon juice well, then fill up the drinking glass with honey.⁷
Dose: one teaspoonful for a daytime coughing spell. One at bedtime and again in the night if the cough wakes the child. For severe cough, six teaspoonfuls across the day. As the cough eases, the doses taper.
Jarvis’s observations on the preparation were specific. “It does not upset the stomach, as many cough syrups do. It can be taken by children as well as adults. It will relieve a cough when all other cough syrups fail.”⁷
He noted the recipe was “many generations old” in his region in 1961. That places its lineage well into the nineteenth century, among people who kept bees, grew lemons in glasshouses or bought them from the general store, and used glycerine (a viscous byproduct of soap-making, cheap at any pharmacy in that era) as a household remedy for coughs, sore throats, and dry skin.
The recipe survives in Jarvis’s book with one further detail that matters. Immediately after giving the formula, he adds an anecdote from a farmer patient.
Speaking of using lemons to compound a cough remedy, I recall the remark of a farmer. When he was explaining how well the suggested remedy had worked he laughed and said, “Fact is, we didn’t have any lemons. I used apple-cider vinegar. Just as good.”⁷
The farmer had substituted vinegar for citrus and got the same result. This is not a marginal detail. It tells you what the acid is doing in the recipe. It is thinning mucus and providing a light astringent action, a function any acid can perform, which is why the substitution worked and why the medieval European oxymels (honey-and-vinegar preparations used for coughs since Hippocrates) sit in the same family as this Vermont formula. The mechanism does not depend on lemon specifically. It depends on a small quantity of acid, dissolved in honey, held long enough in the throat to coat the irritated tissue.
Jarvis’s Vermont formulation is one documentation of a broader folk tradition. The base was constant across regions and centuries: honey plus acid. The additions varied by kitchen and by climate.
Jethro Kloss, working the same tradition from a different angle, published Back to Eden in 1939 with parallel preparations drawn from the Tennessee-Wisconsin herbal lineage. His lemon syrup began identically. “Boil one pint of lemon juice ten minutes.”⁸ His fig cough syrup combined honey and lemon in the same architecture. His entry on coltsfoot (Latin Tussilago farfara, literally “coughwort”) notes the leaves are “excellent when combined with other herbs and made into a cough syrup,” sweetened with honey. Kloss’s book documents lemon for colds, influenza, asthma, and fever across seven pages. “I wish that humanity would understand the real value of the lemon and learn to make a real medicine of it.”⁸
Kloss also documented thyme. His entry on Thymus vulgaris lists its medicinal properties as tonic, carminative, antispasmodic, and antiseptic, and describes it as “valuable in whooping cough, asthma, and lung troubles. For small children, give small and frequent doses.”⁸ His caution alongside was equally specific: “Use sparingly. Do not make a habit of using thyme.” Concentrated action, careful dosing.
Thyme’s principal active compounds, thymol and carvacrol, are phenolics concentrated in the plant’s volatile oils. Their actions on airway tissue are documented and specific. Thymol is antispasmodic on bronchial smooth muscle: it relaxes the involuntary contractions that produce coughing spasms. It is expectorant: it thins mucus and stimulates the ciliated cells lining the airway to move it upward for clearance. And because the volatile oils vaporize at warm-drink temperatures, a portion of the thymol is delivered by inhalation as well as by swallowing when the syrup is taken warm. Aromatic herbs work through two routes at once. Germany’s Commission E, the mainstream regulatory body for herbal medicines and roughly the German equivalent of a plant-medicine FDA, approves thyme for symptomatic treatment of bronchitis, whooping cough, and catarrh of the upper airway.¹⁵ European folk medicine has used it continuously in that role for centuries.
The recipe this essay recommends draws on both traditions. Honey and lemon supply the demulcent and osmotic base, as in Jarvis. Thyme adds the antispasmodic and aromatic action, as in Kloss. The formulation is in the appendix. Jarvis’s exact Vermont version, with glycerine, is in the appendix as well, for readers who want the historical formulation as he wrote it. Glycerine is a more processed component than the others (a purified single compound rather than a whole food), but it has been in continuous folk use since the nineteenth century as a pharmacy-counter demulcent, and it extends the throat-coating time beyond what honey alone provides. Both formulations work. The primary is closer to whole-food preparation.
The recipe was not Jarvis’s discovery. Jarvis was writing down what he saw farmers using. Kloss was doing the same in a different region.
A note before proceeding. Honey is not given to infants under one year. The concern is toxicological, not infectious. Clostridium botulinum spores can be present in raw honey. In older children and adults, established gut flora and stomach acid prevent the spores from germinating, and they pass through without effect. In an infant’s immature digestive tract, the same spores can germinate and produce botulinum toxin, a potent neurotoxin. The organism is not causing an infection. The toxin is doing the damage. The caution predates the Paul trial by decades and is not disputed by any party, mainstream or otherwise. The Paul study enrolled children aged two and above for the same reason.
What a cough is
A cough is an expulsive reflex. Irritation of the airway lining, from mucus, dust, smoke, particulate matter, gastric reflux, dryness, or cold air, triggers rapid contraction of the diaphragm and intercostals against a closed glottis. The glottis opens. Air explodes out at velocities exceeding twenty-five meters per second, carrying whatever the airway is trying to clear.
The reflex exists because the airway lining is thin, delicate, and constantly exposed to material that shouldn’t be there. Without the cough, particulate matter accumulates. Mucus produced to trap that material accumulates with it. Untreated, the accumulation moves down. What began as a throat irritation becomes a chest cough. What began as an acute condition, resolved in days by the body’s clearance of the trigger, becomes chronic.
Kloss described this progression plainly in Back to Eden. On chronic bronchitis: “Acute bronchitis may become chronic if it is not properly treated and relieved. When a cold is allowed to continue, the infection may extend down into the lungs and become chronic. Occasionally, if it is not cured, it may encourage the development of tuberculosis or some other serious chronic lung disease.”⁸ On why the cough arose in the first place: “Colds would not be so prevalent if the body were not filled with mucus and waste products, so one should immediately rid the body of these poisons.”⁸
The framework is not obscure. Herbert Shelton, the twentieth-century natural hygienist, called it the acute-to-chronic mechanism. The body’s efforts to expel accumulated toxins produce acute symptoms. Suppression of those symptoms leaves the toxins in place. The body attempts expulsion by other routes. Those routes are suppressed in turn. The process, driven long enough, produces chronic disease that presents as a distinct condition, apparently unrelated to the accumulated cause.
The cough is the body clearing the airway. To decide what a cough syrup should do, you have to decide what you think a cough is for. That decision determines everything downstream.
The suppressor
Dextromethorphan was patented in the 1950s as a non-narcotic replacement for codeine. Codeine had a long history as a cough suppressant, and a long history as an opioid: sedating, addictive, respiratory-depressant at high doses. Dextromethorphan was developed to keep the antitussive function without the opioid liability.
It works centrally. The drug reaches the brainstem through the bloodstream and depresses the medullary cough center, which is the neural relay where signals from an irritated airway would normally trigger the expulsive reflex. It achieves this by binding to receptors in the brainstem, blocking NMDA glutamate receptors and activating sigma-1 receptors. It also weakly affects serotonin and norepinephrine.⁹ The signal from the airway still arrives at the relay. It no longer produces a cough.
Nothing about this mechanism addresses the airway. Dextromethorphan does not soothe irritation. It does not thin mucus. It does not accelerate its removal. It does not resolve whatever prompted the cough. It sits on receptors that normally allow the cough signal to fire, and it prevents them from firing.
The signal was the body’s alarm. The cough was its response to the alarm. Dextromethorphan silences the response by muting the alarm at the central switchboard.
At therapeutic doses, this produces the intended effect (the person stops coughing) for as long as the drug is active. At supratherapeutic doses the NMDA antagonism produces dissociation and hallucination similar in character to phencyclidine.⁹ The recreational abuse of dextromethorphan-containing cough syrups (known as “robotripping”) is a documented clinical phenomenon. At high doses in combination with serotonergic drugs, it produces serotonin syndrome. At high doses generally, it produces respiratory depression.
In children specifically, the Paul team ran their earlier study in 2004, dextromethorphan versus diphenhydramine versus placebo, and found none of the three superior for nocturnal cough or sleep quality.¹⁰ This was not an isolated result. By the time the American Academy of Pediatrics reviewed the evidence, it did not recommend dextromethorphan for children. The American College of Chest Physicians reached the same conclusion.¹
By 2007 the leading over-the-counter cough drug in America had been tested against an inert control in two randomized trials, first against placebo and then against no treatment. It had shown no measurable advantage in either. Six weeks later the FDA advisory arrived, citing convulsions and deaths.
The soother
The folk cough syrup does something categorically different.
Kloss defined the two active mechanisms in the glossary of Back to Eden. A demulcent is “an agent that soothes, protects, and relieves the irritation of inflamed mucous membranes and other surfaces.” An expectorant “promotes the thinning and ejection of mucus or exudate from the lungs, bronchi, and trachea.”⁸
The preparation is both, and with thyme it is also antispasmodic.
Honey is a supersaturated sugar solution with a water activity of around 0.6 (too low to support most microbial growth) and a pH of around 3.9. Held on the tissue of the throat, it draws water osmotically from the inflamed lining, which reduces local swelling and provides mechanical soothing. Its viscosity coats and protects the irritated surface. Lemon juice, at a pH of around 2.2, thins mucus on contact and provides light astringent action from citric acid and phenolic compounds. Vinegar, at a similar pH, does the same thing, which is why the farmer’s substitution worked.
Thyme adds two further actions to the base. Thymol, its principal phenolic compound, relaxes bronchial smooth muscle: the involuntary tension that produces coughing spasms eases. Thymol also stimulates the ciliated cells of the airway lining to move mucus upward for clearance, which is exactly what a productive cough is trying to do. The syrup helps the cough finish faster. The volatile oils vaporize slightly at warm-drink temperature, delivering a portion of the thymol by inhalation alongside ingestion, so the active compound reaches the airway lining directly as well as via the digestive tract.
In Jarvis’s Vermont variant, glycerine adds a further specific function. It is strongly hygroscopic. It holds moisture against tissue and extends the demulcent contact time beyond what honey alone provides. It is not essential to the recipe’s action, but it lengthens the duration of soothing per spoonful.
The syrup soothes the irritation triggering the cough. It thins the mucus the cough is trying to clear. It relaxes the airway spasm. It supports the reflex rather than suppressing it. When the cough is no longer needed, it stops.
The mechanism runs on the airway, not in the brainstem. It leaves the reflex intact and removes its cause.
Honey has other properties that matter here. Its low water activity, low pH, hydrogen peroxide production, and specific plant-derived phenolic compounds create an environment inhospitable to microbial overgrowth on inflamed tissue. This is why traditional cultures used honey on open wounds long before anyone had proposed a theory of infection. Buckwheat honey specifically, the varietal Paul’s team chose, is unusually high in phenolic compounds and antioxidant activity. The World Health Organization’s Department of Child and Adolescent Health, in its 2001 review of cough and cold remedies for young children, cited honey as a potentially effective option six years before the Penn State trial confirmed it.¹¹,¹²
The recipe soothes without suppressing. That is the essential difference. It works with the reflex. Dextromethorphan works against it.
The 2007 trial was measuring, without knowing it, the difference between those two approaches.
Continuity
The medicinal use of honey is documented continuously across every literate culture from the emergence of writing forward. Sumerian clay tablets from around 2100 BC record honey mixed with river dust and oil for infected skin ulcers. Egyptian medical papyri describe honey applied to open wounds. Sushruta, a physician in Vedic India around 1400 BC, wrote of the medicinal properties of eight honey varietals. Athenaeus in Greece around 230 AD recorded that those who ate honey and bread for breakfast “were free from disease all their lives.” Ibn Majah, quoting Mohammed in the seventh century, wrote that “honey is a remedy for every illness.”¹¹
The specific use for cough runs the same length. Every one of these traditions used honey, sometimes alone, more often combined with acid, herb, or spice, for cough, sore throat, and cold.
Sir John Hill, a physician in England in 1759, wrote the first English-language book devoted to the medicinal use of honey. He observed, then, that its virtues were being neglected.
The slight regard at this time paid to the medicinal virtues of Honey, is an instance of neglect men shew to common objects, whatever their value: acting in contempt, as it were, of the immediate hand of providence, which has in general made those things most frequent, which have the greatest uses; and for that reason, we seek from the remotest part of the world, medicines of harsh and violent operation for our relief in several disorders, under which we should never suffer, if we would use what the Bee collects for us at our doors.¹¹
The observation held. The nineteenth century saw the rise of proprietary patent medicines: laudanum-based cough syrups, cocaine-based lozenges, alcohol-heavy elixirs marketed to households through newspapers and mail order. The twentieth century industrialized that market. Dextromethorphan was patented in the 1950s, sold under proprietary brand names, marketed to parents through television. The recipe on the counter (honey with lemon, honey with vinegar, honey with fig, honey with coltsfoot, honey with thyme, honey with glycerine) was displaced not by evidence but by advertising and shelf space.
Jarvis published the Vermont version in 1958. Kloss had published the Tennessee-Wisconsin version in 1939. Fessenden and McInnes catalogued the honey material comprehensively in 2008. The WHO acknowledged honey for cough in 2001. Penn State confirmed it in randomized trial in 2007. The Cochrane Collaboration confirmed it again in 2018.
At each of these points the establishment position on cough treatment in children shifted slightly closer to what Jarvis’s farmers already did.
The recipe did not move. It was where it had been since before Jarvis was born.
What replaced it
The FDA advisory did not arrive by regulatory initiative. It arrived because pediatricians forced it. Joshua Sharfstein, a pediatrician at Johns Hopkins and later a senior FDA regulator, was among the authors of a March 2007 petition that asked the agency to declare these products contraindicated for children under six. His December 2007 piece in the New England Journal of Medicine, published the same month as the Paul trial, described the market the pediatric community was asking the FDA to move against: 39 percent of U.S. households had purchased these products in the previous three years, and consumers were buying about 95 million packages annually for use in children.¹⁴
The mechanism of the withdrawal was industry self-protection. Manufacturers voluntarily pulled infant products before the January 2008 announcement to avoid a mandatory recall. The two-to-four age band was formally excluded by industry relabeling that same year. The remaining products, for children over four, were left in place with warnings, though the same trials that had cleared under-fours had also failed to demonstrate benefit in the older group.¹
The regulatory response was serious. The public messaging afterward was not. Pediatricians were left to tell parents what to do instead. A physician commentary in NEJM Journal Watch put the new recommendation plainly. “Give fluids and control fever, but don’t give cough and cold medicines.”¹³
The old recipe was fluids that soothed the throat and thinned mucus. Any child would take it, because it tasted of honey and lemon. The whole preparation cost pennies. The advice arrived at, after the industry had killed enough children to warrant the FDA advisory, was a diminished version of what a grandmother would have done in 1900.
What made pediatric cough syrup a 95-million-package-a-year business was not that its products worked better than the folk preparation. They did not work better than the folk preparation. On the primary outcomes of two randomized trials in children, they did not work better than nothing. What made them a 95-million-package-a-year business was that they could be branded, patented, shelf-placed, and advertised. Honey, lemon, and thyme could not. There was no company whose share price depended on the survival of a grandmother’s recipe. There were many companies whose share price depended on the survival of dextromethorphan-based products.
The FDA withdrawal removed the infant portion of that market. The revenue from products marketed for children over four continues.
What’s on the counter
Jarvis called the recipe “many generations old” in 1961. He was describing something already ordinary: the syrup a farmer’s wife would make when a child was coughing at night, the same way she would make broth or apply a mustard plaster. It required no prescription, no pharmacist, no marketing budget, no clinical trial. It required a lemon, a jar of honey, a small pinch of thyme from the herb garden, and ten minutes.
The Penn State trial did not discover the recipe. The WHO did not discover it. Cochrane did not discover it. What each of these did was confirm, in the register of institutional science, what farmers in Vermont and grandmothers in every other country had known for as long as anyone had kept bees.
The lemon costs about a dollar. The honey costs between five and fifteen dollars a jar, and one jar lasts a long time. Thyme is a garden herb that grows in a pot on a windowsill. If the lemon is not available, apple-cider vinegar is in the pantry. The whole preparation takes ten minutes to boil the lemon and thirty seconds to assemble. It does not upset the stomach, and it can be given to children over one. It works when the industrial products do not, or more precisely, it works when the industrial products have been shown not to work at all.
Every one of the relevant documents is public. The Paul study is on PubMed and the FDA advisory is in the Federal Register. Jarvis’s book has been in continuous print for over sixty years. Nothing about this argument has been hidden. The disagreement between what the trials established and what the pharmacy shelves offered lasted a full century and cost the lives of children.
The recipe is on the counter. It always has been.
Making the syrup
Ingredients (fills one 8-ounce / 240 ml glass or mason jar)
1 fresh lemon (or 2 tablespoons apple-cider vinegar as substitute)
1 fresh sprig thyme (or ½ teaspoon dried thyme)
About 1 cup (240 ml) of water, for boiling the lemon
Honey to fill the remainder of the glass, roughly ⅔ of the volume (about 5 fluid ounces / 150 ml / 10 tablespoons)
Method
Bring about 1 cup of water to a simmer in a small saucepan. Add the whole lemon and the thyme sprig. Simmer slowly for ten minutes. The heat softens the rind and extracts the lemon juice, and it draws the thymol and volatile oils out of the thyme into the water. Remove the pan from the heat. Fish out the thyme sprig (or strain if using dried thyme) and discard.
Cut the lemon in half and squeeze the juice into your glass or jar. Add 2 tablespoons (30 ml) of the thyme-and-lemon water from the saucepan. Fill the rest of the glass with honey, stirring as you go until the mixture is smooth. You will use roughly 10 tablespoons of honey to fill an 8-ounce glass.
If using apple-cider vinegar instead of lemon, simmer the thyme alone in about ½ cup of water for ten minutes. Strain and discard the thyme. Add 2 tablespoons of the thyme water and 2 tablespoons of apple-cider vinegar to the glass, then fill the rest with honey. The vinegar variant is well-attested in the folk record.
Dose
For an occasional daytime coughing spell: one teaspoonful, stirred before taking.
At bedtime: one teaspoonful, and one more during the night if the cough wakes the child.
For a severe cough: one teaspoonful on rising, one mid-morning, one after lunch, one mid-afternoon, one after supper, one at bedtime. Reduce the frequency as the cough eases.
For small children: half a teaspoonful, taken more often.
Take the syrup warm when possible. The warmth releases the thyme’s volatile oils and delivers a portion of the active compounds to the airway by inhalation as well as by swallowing.
The Jarvis variant, with glycerine
Jarvis’s original Vermont formulation adds glycerine to extend the throat-coating time. Glycerine is a purified vegetable compound rather than a whole food, but it has been in traditional folk use since the nineteenth century and provides a longer-lasting demulcent film on the throat than honey alone. Readers who want Jarvis’s exact recipe, or who want the extended contact time, use this variant:
Ingredients (fills one 8-ounce / 240 ml glass or mason jar)
2 tablespoons (30 ml) vegetable glycerine, USP grade, from any pharmacy
Honey to fill the remainder, about 5 fluid ounces (150 ml, or roughly 10 tablespoons)
Optional: 1 sprig fresh thyme or ½ teaspoon dried thyme, added at the boiling step
Method
Simmer the lemon in about 1 cup of water for ten minutes (with the thyme if using). Remove and discard the thyme. Cut the lemon in half and squeeze the juice into the glass. Add the glycerine and stir. Fill the rest with honey and stir again.
The dose is the same as for the primary recipe.
Cautions
Do not give honey to infants under one year of age.Clostridium botulinum spores can be present in raw honey. In older children and adults, mature gut flora and stomach acid prevent them from germinating and they pass through without effect. In an infant’s immature digestive tract, they can produce botulinum toxin. The toxin causes the harm, not the organism. The caution is not disputed.
Thyme. Use sparingly, as Kloss advised. A sprig or half a teaspoon of dried herb is enough per glass. Not recommended in medicinal doses during pregnancy. Culinary amounts in food are fine; a therapeutic syrup is the caveat.
Raw versus pasteurized honey. Raw honey is preferable when available. It retains the enzymes, phenolic compounds, and volatile aromatics that pasteurization heat degrades. Pasteurized honey works and delivers the demulcent and osmotic action, but the extra biochemical richness of raw honey is lost in the heating. Darker varietals (buckwheat, if available; otherwise wildflower, manuka, or dark forest honeys) contain more phenolic compounds than pale varietals like clover, but any real honey works. Read the label: some supermarket “honey” is cut with corn syrup or rice syrup and is not honey at all. On the infant botulism question: pasteurization does not eliminate the risk. Clostridium botulinum spores are heat-resistant far beyond standard honey pasteurization temperatures. The under-one caution applies to both raw and pasteurized honey.
Storage. The finished syrup keeps in a sealed glass jar (a mason jar works well) for several weeks at room temperature, and longer refrigerated. The honey’s osmotic action and the lemon or vinegar acidity together create a hostile environment for microbial growth. Give it a stir before each dose, as the honey may settle. If the syrup ever develops off smells, cloudiness that wasn’t there originally, or fermentation bubbles, discard and make a fresh batch.
References
1. Paul IM, Beiler J, McMonagle A, Shaffer ML, Duda L, Berlin CM Jr. Effect of honey, dextromethorphan, and no treatment on nocturnal cough and sleep quality for coughing children and their parents. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine 2007;161(12):1140–1146.
2. Axelsson I. Honey, not dextromethorphan, was better than no treatment for nocturnal cough in children with upper respiratory infections. Evidence-Based Medicine 2008;13(4):106.
3. Oduwole O, Udoh EE, Oyo-Ita A, Meremikwu MM. Honey for acute cough in children. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2018, Issue 4. Art. No.: CD007094.
4. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Public Health Advisory: Nonprescription Cough and Cold Medicine Use in Children. Issued 17 January 2008.
5. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Infant deaths associated with cough and cold medications, United States, 2005. MMWR Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 2007;56(01):1–4.
6. Consumer Healthcare Products Association. Voluntary withdrawal of oral infant cough and cold medicines announced October 2007; pediatric labeling change announced October 2008.
7. Jarvis DC. Folk Medicine: A Doctor’s Guide to Good Health. First published New York: Henry Holt, 1958. UK edition consulted: London: Pan Books, 1961. Chapter 9, “An Old-Fashioned Cough Remedy,” pp. 105–106.
8. Kloss J. Back to Eden. First published 1939. Revised edition, Back to Eden Publishing, 2009. Glossary; entries on lemon, coltsfoot, thyme, and bronchitis; Section II, Chapter 3, Herbal Syrups.
9. Journey JD, Bhattarai S, Agrawal S. Dextromethorphan. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing, 2024. See also: Nguyen L, Thomas KL, Lucke-Wold BP, et al. Dextromethorphan: An update on its utility for neurological and neuropsychiatric disorders. Pharmacology & Therapeutics 2016;159:1–22.
10. Paul IM, Yoder KE, Crowell KR, et al. Effect of dextromethorphan, diphenhydramine, and placebo on nocturnal cough and sleep quality for coughing children and their parents. Pediatrics 2004;114(1):e85–e90.
11. Fessenden R, McInnes M. The Honey Revolution: Restoring the Health of Future Generations. 2008. Chapter 9, “Honey That Soothes and Heals,” pp. 141–146.
12. World Health Organization, Department of Child and Adolescent Health. Cough and Cold Remedies for the Treatment of Acute Respiratory Infections in Young Children. Geneva: WHO, 2001.
13. NEJM Journal Watch. FDA warns against use of cough medicines in children younger than 2 years. Commentary published 12 September 2007.
14. Sharfstein JM, North M, Serwint JR. Over the counter but no longer under the radar: pediatric cough and cold medications. New England Journal of Medicine 2007;357(23):2321–2324.
15. Blumenthal M, ed. The Complete German Commission E Monographs: Therapeutic Guide to Herbal Medicines. Austin, Texas: American Botanical Council, 1998. Monograph on thyme (Thymi herba).
Prof. Seyed Mohammad Marandi is a former advisor to Iran’s nuclear negotiation team. Prof. Marandi discusses the 60,000 Moroccans storming into Spain and the possible encouragement from the US and Israel to reward Morocco and punish Spain.
Among the adherents to the cult of climate change, nobody can claim a higher level of sanctimony than the Big Tech behemoths — the likes of Google, Microsoft and Meta. These new economic titans fancy themselves to be totally unlike the dirty and grubby industrial companies of the past, like the steel, automobile or oil producers with their belching smokestacks. Each of these new tech powerhouses loudly proclaims its sacred and unwavering commitment to “net zero” emissions by some early date, typically 2030.
At the time of that post, all three of those Big Tech behemoths, besides maintaining their own supposed paths to “net zero,” were also engaged to one degree or another in censoring and/or de-monetizing and/or downgrading anybody who dared to deviate from the so-called “climate consensus” — whatever that may be.
And as they censored and de-monetized anyone who deviated from the climate religion, each of those tech giants published their own annual “environment” or “sustainability” reports proclaiming their own strict adherence to the official orthodoxy. My 2024 post linked to the 2024 Reports of Google and Microsoft, and the then-most-recent 2023 Report of Meta. Those Google and Meta Reports can be found here and here; the Microsoft 2024 Report seems to have mysteriously disappeared from the internet.
In 2024, the AI craze and the accelerated build-out of infrastructure by the tech giants was just getting going. Today, all of them are engaged in a mad race to build the most and the fastest. In this light, the bloviation of the 2023 and 2024 “sustainability” reports makes truly entertaining reading today. Here are a few excerpts from the intro to the Google 2024 Report:
Since our earliest days, we’ve been on an ambitious journey to help build a more sustainable future. . . . To help minimize our environmental footprint, we’ve built world-leading efficient infrastructure for the AI era. . . . We strive to build the world’s most energy-efficient computing infrastructure. . . . In 2017, Google became the first major company to match 100% of our annual electricity consumption on a global basis with renewable energy, which we’ve achieved every year since [what does that mean?]. . . . Building on our first two decades of progress, in 2020 we launched our third decade of climate action—our most ambitious yet. . . . We have a bold goal to reach net-zero emissions across all of our operations and value chain by 2030. . . .
And from the Meta 2023 “Sustainability” Report:
We are now reaching toward the goals of net zero emissions across our value chain and becoming water positive throughout our operations, aiming to achieve both of these milestones in 2030. Meta’s net zero in 2030 goal focuses on embedding sustainability into everything we do, whether designing products, commuting, selecting construction materials or working with suppliers to set their own net zero targets. For example, through our Net Zero program, we work closely with suppliers to determine their Scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions, set reduction targets and promote strategic action. . . . We are committed to protecting what is truly important: The well-being of people and our planet. . . . [We] take bold climate action by minimizing our footprint, championing renewable energy, restoring water resources, engaging our suppliers and supporting climate justice.
Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
Well, fast forward to July 2026 — with the AI and data center build-out in full swing — and Google is just out with the 2026 version of its Report. Here is a link to the Google 2026 Report — 116 pages long. You would think that they would just give up and walk away from this nonsense, but instead they try to keep up the brave talk. The Executive Summary is all about mis-direction:
At Google, we’re deeply committed to responsibly managing the environmental footprint of our operations and unlocking the power of AI for the planet. . . . The AI revolution has made the last five years especially transformative, and we’re proud of the progress we’ve achieved. In 2025 alone, we signed agreements for over 12 GW of net-new clean energy. By combining this record-breaking procurement with our industry-leading infrastructure, we’re working to ensure that every megawatt is used as efficiently as possible. . . . It was with this same bold spirit that, at the beginning of the decade, we set net zero and 24/7 carbon-free energy2 (CFE) moonshots that were intentionally aspirational and designed to push the frontiers of what’s possible in energy systems and data center operations. . . . Our moonshots pushed us to meet this moment, and the scale of our impact has similarly undergone a step-change. In 2025, we contracted for eight times more clean energy than we did in 2019. Furthermore, the emissions we successfully avoided in 2025 represent seven times the size of our 2019 ambition-based carbon footprint. . . .
More blah-di-blah-di-blah. Guys, your promise was not to procure more “clean energy” or to “make every megawatt as efficient as possible.” It was “net zero” by 2030. Any progress on that?
To get the answer you’ll need to make it all the way to page 69, to a section titled “Progress update/carbon footprint”:
In 2025, our total ambition-based emissions were approximately 14.5 million tCO2e. . . . Our total ambition-based emissions increased 18% compared to 2024—primarily driven by increases in supply chain activities that supported the rapid expansion of our business. We recognize that our climate impact has been growing alongside the unprecedented growth of AI, and we’re actively working to minimize this impact.
What a joke.
Over at Meta, they continue to be a year behind in the reporting. But the basic story is no different. Here is a link to their (most recent) “2025 Sustainability Report.” Here’s the same sort of mis-direction in the introduction:
We are taking a multifaceted approach to implementing emissions reduction strategies that includes procuring clean and renewable energy and exploring innovative technologies like energy storage and geothermal energy. As a result of our clean and renewable energy procurement, we have reduced our emissions by 23.8 million metric tons (M MT) of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) since 2021.
I’ve gone all the way through this Report and I can’t find any actual comparison of 2025 emissions versus 2023. Maybe I missed it. On page 70 there is a link labeled “environmental metrics.” It doesn’t even say what is there, but if you go there you will find a chart headed “Total GHG Emissions.” Those are reported to have been 7,443,182 MTCO2e in 2023, and 8,150,595 in 2024 (most recent year reported). That’s an increase of about 9.5% in that one year.
And here’s the latest about Meta, not from Meta itself, but from Yahoo Financeon July 24:
Meta quits clean energy pledge amid gas-powered data center push. Meta has abandoned a global pledge by leading companies to source all of their electricity from renewable sources, the social media giant confirmed Friday. Meta joined the pledge in 2016 according to a Wayback Machine archive of RE100’s website. The departure comes amid a frenzied data center buildout by leading tech companies. Meta has struck deals paying utilities to bring new natural gas power plants online, including 10 to power its Hyperion data center in Louisiana alone.
I understand that a little hypocrisy is inevitable in this world. But after the level of sanctimony that these guys have engaged in, let alone censorship of others, nobody should forget that it was all a scam from the outset.
Singaporean police are investigating an incident involving the display of a Palestinian flag during a concert by the British band Massive Attack, which ended its performance in the country by raising the flag on stage, according to a police statement issued on 31 July.
Police and media stated that investigations are ongoing concerning what was described as “a possible breach of license conditions.”
Under Singaporean law, no foreign national emblem may be shown in public without a permit or an exemption.
The Palestinian flag carries particular sensitivity given Israel’s genocide of Palestinians in Gaza and the country’s sizable Muslim population.
The home affairs ministry issued a public advisory in 2023 against displaying or wearing items connected to events in Palestine and Israel.
“The ongoing Israel-Hamas conflict is an emotive issue. We would like to advise against the public display and wearing of articles in relation to the conflict, given the heightened sensitivities,” the ministry said.
The case of Massive Attack is far from the first display of solidarity with Palestine to draw legal action.
Since the start of the Gaza genocide in October 2023, efforts to support Palestine have faced some of the broadest and most diverse crackdowns on public protests.
In the US, authorities and universities have responded to Gaza solidarity demonstrations with mass arrests, suspensions, and criminal charges against students and faculty, while federal officials have threatened funding cuts and investigations targeting pro‑Palestinian activism.
The UK government has used anti‑terror legislation and public‑order powers to ban groups, impose strict conditions on rallies and detain thousands of protesters, activists and academics for expressing support for Palestine.
In France, interior‑ministry directives have led to repeated nationwide bans on pro‑Palestinian demonstrations, with police deploying tear gas, water cannon and mass fines to disperse gatherings and prosecutors pursuing criminal cases against organizers and participants.
In Germany, one of Israel’s staunchest allies, state authorities have treated common pro‑Palestinian slogans as criminal offenses, imposed protest bans, carried out hundreds of arrests and fines, and pursued deportations and other immigration measures against foreign activists involved in solidarity actions.
Saudi Arabia’s decision to build an international coalition and militarize the Red Sea will not protect its vessels in the waterway, says a prominent member of Yemen’s Supreme Political Council, warning that such move will mount regional tensions and complicate the security landscape.
Abdulaziz bin Habtour, in a statement issued on Friday, called the proposed Saudi maritime coalition a facade for persisting with the aggression and blockade against Yemen.
He stated that the Bab al-Mandab Strait continues to be accessible for international navigation, emphasizing that Yemen’s maritime measures target only Saudi vessels, calling them a reaction to the blockade placed on Yemen.
Bin Habtour said that earlier warnings to the US-led “Prosperity Guardian” coalition underscored that the Red Sea crisis couldn’t be resolved through military force, but by terminating Israel’s genocidal war in Gaza and removing the blockade.
He noted that removal of the Saudi blockade and cessation of the military campaign against Yemen, instead of militarizing the Bab al-Mandab Strait, is the sole method to ease regional tensions.
Reuters quoted people familiar with the deliberations that Saudi Arabia seeks to form an international coalition against Yemen in the Red Sea.
The coalition’s composition has not been finalized and discussions are ongoing with numerous countries, the sources were quoted as saying.
On July 20, the Sana’a government declared a maritime blockade against Saudi Arabia, stating that its authorities have enforced “an unjust and oppressive siege” on Yemen for almost 12 years, “looting our resources and enforcing a total blockade.”
Since then, the Yemeni Armed Forces said they have launched attacks on Saudi vessels in the Red Sea.
Saudi Arabia and its Arab allies launched the blockade on Yemen as part of a full-scale war since March 2015, with military, political, and logistical support from the United States and other Western states.
The war has killed tens of thousands of Yemenis, while consistently falling short of its main objective of restoring power to Yemen’s former Riyadh-friendly regime.
Following a fragile UN-brokered ceasefire in 2022, the United States, Britain, and the Israeli regime waged many rounds of aggression against Yemen. The attacks sought to cripple Sana’a’s capability to stage solidarity strikes against Israeli targets in response to Tel Aviv’s war of genocide on the Gaza Strip.
The conflict in Yemen, now in its second decade, has entered a new and extremely perilous phase. Recent developments indicate that Sanaa has transitioned from defense to active deterrence, leveraging asymmetric capabilities to strike at the vital arteries of its powerful neighbor.
What once appeared to be a localized skirmish on the periphery of the Arabian Peninsula has now morphed into a direct threat to the Kingdom’s energy security and the stability of the entire region. This escalation unfolds against a backdrop of mounting tensions between the “Axis of Resistance” (Iran, the Houthis, Hezbollah) and the bloc led by the United States and Israel, lending the Yemeni crisis a geopolitical dimension that reaches far beyond the bilateral relationship between Sanaa and Riyadh.
The Bombing of Hodeidah as a Trigger for Escalation
The immediate catalyst for the sharp deterioration was Saudi airstrikes on targets in Hodeidah province, including telecommunications infrastructure and the strategically vital island of Kamaran. These actions, which Riyadh framed as a show of force and a preemptive measure against Houthi expansion, were interpreted by the Yemeni side as a flagrant violation of sovereignty and an act of aggression. The Saudi-led coalition had hoped to degrade the enemy’s military capacity; however, the outcome was precisely the opposite. The very next day, July 25, the Yemeni Armed Forces announced the execution of two large-scale operations targeting the Kingdom’s “energy engine.” This lightning-fast response demonstrated not only the Houthis’ high state of combat readiness but also their determination to carry the war onto enemy territory, employing a principle of “an eye for an eye.”
The retaliatory strikes targeted strategic Saudi Aramco facilities in the cities of Jizan and Yanbu. According to reports, the attacks employed dozens of ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, and swarms of drones. Footage circulating on social media captured plumes of smoke rising over the Jizan refinery complex, while satellite imagery and regional sources confirmed direct hits. The selection of targets represents a highly precise strategic move, indicating a deep analysis of Saudi economic vulnerabilities. Yanbu is a critical node for Saudi oil exports via the Red Sea, purpose-built to bypass the vulnerable Strait of Hormuz. By striking Yanbu and Jizan, Yemen is effectively attacking the “western escape route” of the Saudi economy, demonstrating an ability to project force up to a thousand kilometers away.
These attacks have also exposed glaring gaps in Saudi Arabia’s air defense network. Costly Western air defense systems, including American Patriot batteries, have proven vulnerable to coordinated, massed strikes employing inexpensive yet effective munitions. This is a classic example of asymmetric warfare, where the cost of the weapons used is incomparably lower than the cost of their interception and the damage inflicted. The cost-effectiveness of such tactics presents Riyadh with an excruciating dilemma: continue with expensive intercepts or absorb the damage from regular attacks, both of which lead to enormous financial losses and undermine the region’s investment appeal.
The Naval Blockade: An Equation of “Blockade for Blockade”
A central element of Yemen’s new strategy is the imposition of a naval blockade against Saudi Arabia. On July 20, the Houthis announced a prohibition on shipping for vessels flying the Saudi flag and any cargo destined for the Kingdom’s ports. They repeatedly stressed that the blockade does not apply to international shipping through the Bab el-Mandeb Strait and is directed exclusively against Saudi Arabia. Movement spokesman Mohammed Abdul Salam denied reports of closing the strait, framing the measures as a legitimate response to years of blockade against Yemen. Yemen’s Deputy Foreign Minister Abdulwahid Abu Ras stated that the decision establishes an equation of “blockade for blockade” and constitutes a right to self-defense guaranteed under international norms.
This move fundamentally alters the rules of engagement. For over a decade, the Saudi-led coalition has maintained an air, naval, and land blockade on Yemen, leading to a devastating humanitarian crisis, famine, and epidemics. Now that Sanaa is employing similar tactics, Western powers, which remained silent for years about the suffering of the Yemeni people, have suddenly voiced deep concern. This situation lays bare a glaring double standard in international law: the right to freedom of navigation suddenly becomes sacrosanct only when the interests of Western allies are threatened. The counter-blockade, beyond its military dimension, carries powerful political and economic weight, directly threatening Saudi Arabia’s ability to export goods via the Red Sea and jeopardizing its energy security.
General Mobilization and Internal Consolidation
Parallel to the naval and missile campaigns, Yemen is intensifying its domestic political mobilization. Ansar Allah leader Abdul Malik al-Houthi issued a decree for general mobilization, placing hundreds of thousands of tribal members and regular army units on combat alert. Mass rallies were held in the northern provinces, showcasing societal unity and a readiness for a protracted confrontation. Reports indicate the formation of a new internal structure—the “General Mobilization Forces”—modeled on Iran’s Basij, signaling long-term planning and an ambition to create deeply layered defensive and offensive capabilities. This militarization of civil society is transforming Yemen into a “fortress” where every resident is potentially a fighter, making occupation or a ground invasion an extremely risky undertaking for the Saudi coalition.
The Yemeni conflict is increasingly intertwined with the broader regional confrontation between the Axis of Resistance and the Western-backed bloc. The escalation is occurring amid tensions between the U.S. and Iran, as well as the ongoing war in Gaza. In response to the Saudi strikes, the Yemeni parliament expressed its full support for the actions of the armed forces, describing them as an inevitable response to the unjust blockade.
The New Reality and Prospects for Confrontation
Thus, the current conflict has far surpassed the bounds of a localized confrontation. Yemen, employing a strategy of asymmetric deterrence, has successfully seized the initiative, transforming years of blockade into a powerful tool of pressure on Saudi Arabia. Strikes on oil facilities and the imposition of a counter-blockade signal a new reality: the era of impunity for Saudi aggression has ended. Any further escalation by Riyadh will have catastrophic consequences for its own economic and energy security. Moreover, the Houthis’ success in confronting the technically advanced Saudi military serves as an inspiring example for other proxy forces in the region.
The situation is reaching a boiling point, and the world holds its breath awaiting the next moves from both sides. Several scenarios are possible, ranging from attempts to renew diplomatic contacts under UN auspices to a full-scale regional war involving external powers. However, one thing is clear: the balance of power in the region has irrevocably shifted, and the old methods of pressuring Yemen are no longer effective. Saudi Arabia will be forced to reconsider its strategy, recognizing that a military solution to the conflict is unattainable and that the economic cost of continuing the war has become prohibitively high. The era of cheap oil and unpunished airstrikes is a thing of the past, giving way to an era of complex negotiations and mutual deterrence.
Muhammad ibn Faisal al-Rashid, Political Scientist, Expert on the Arab World
When the House of Commons was debating how much to increase the time limit for detention without trial the question of torture came up. Officially this was limited to the nice considerations of whether it was all right to send people to places where torture is used and whether Britain can use information collected by the use of torture in other countries. This discussion gave an impression of democratic Britain as the home of civilised behaviour where the very idea of torture is repugnant to our legislators – unlike, say, the US with its secret CIA jails… In reality, the British state has a long history of using and developing a whole range of torture techniques. … continue
This site is provided as a research and reference tool. Although we make every reasonable effort to ensure that the information and data provided at this site are useful, accurate, and current, we cannot guarantee that the information and data provided here will be error-free. By using this site, you assume all responsibility for and risk arising from your use of and reliance upon the contents of this site.
This site and the information available through it do not, and are not intended to constitute legal advice. Should you require legal advice, you should consult your own attorney.
Nothing within this site or linked to by this site constitutes investment advice or medical advice.
Materials accessible from or added to this site by third parties, such as comments posted, are strictly the responsibility of the third party who added such materials or made them accessible and we neither endorse nor undertake to control, monitor, edit or assume responsibility for any such third-party material.
The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.
The word “alleged” is deemed to occur before the word “fraud.” Since the rule of law still applies. To peasants, at least.
Fair Use
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more info go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
DMCA Contact
This is information for anyone that wishes to challenge our “fair use” of copyrighted material.
If you are a legal copyright holder or a designated agent for such and you believe that content residing on or accessible through our website infringes a copyright and falls outside the boundaries of “Fair Use”, please send a notice of infringement by contacting atheonews@gmail.com.
We will respond and take necessary action immediately.
If notice is given of an alleged copyright violation we will act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material(s) in question.
All 3rd party material posted on this website is copyright the respective owners / authors. Aletho News makes no claim of copyright on such material.