Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Canada unveils new pipeline plan to cut US oil dependence

Al Mayadeen | July 3, 2026

Canada has moved forward with plans for a major new oil pipeline aimed at reducing its reliance on the United States and positioning itself as a supplier to Asian energy markets.

Alberta has formally submitted proposals to the federal Major Projects Office for a pipeline exceeding 1,000 kilometers, intended to carry as much as one million barrels of crude per day to the British Columbia coast, with construction slated to begin by September 2027.

Prime Minister Mark Carney described the initiative as a “once in a lifetime opportunity” for the country, announcing that the new line would largely trace the path of the existing Trans Mountain corridor.

The project would be built by Trans Mountain Corp, a federal Crown corporation, in partnership with Pembina Pipeline Corp.

Billions in investment

Carney tied the pipeline to a broader economic strategy, projecting that Thursday’s announcements would spur more than C$200 billion (US$141 billion) in fresh investment.

Alongside the pipeline, the plan includes nearly tripling Canada’s liquefied natural gas capacity through five new terminals over the next ten years, as well as a C$10 billion upgrade to the Port of Vancouver.

Alberta Premier Danielle Smith further called for the province’s oil production to double and for the pipeline to be operational by 2035.

Washington’s shadow looms over decision

The push comes as Canada seeks to loosen its economic dependence on Washington.

The US currently absorbs about three-quarters of Canadian exports and roughly 60 percent of its oil imports, some 4 million barrels a day, nearly all of it drawn from Alberta’s oil sands, among the largest crude reserves in the world.

Carney has vowed to double Canada’s non-US trade as President Donald Trump has threatened tariffs of up to 100 percent on Canadian goods and repeated calls for Canada to become the “51st state.”

Trump also declined this week to commit to a long-term renewal of the US-Mexico-Canada trade agreement he signed in his first term.

Environmental groups

Environmental groups and First Nations communities welcomed Carney’s decision to preserve an existing tanker ban along BC’s northern coast, with Heiltsuk Nation Chief Marilyn Slett calling it “a good day” for efforts to prevent oil spills.

Carney, a former UN climate envoy, has also acknowledged that the fossil-fuel-driven strategy will push Canada’s emissions higher, distancing his government from predecessor Justin Trudeau’s more restrictive approach to the oil sector.

Industry groups, meanwhile, argue that regulatory hurdles and an uncompetitive tax structure continue to discourage investment.

The plan also unfolds against a backdrop of internal strain, with Alberta’s separatist movement gaining traction and a referendum vote on independence set for October 19.

Trump threats fuel patriotism among Canadians

Trump’s confrontational posture toward Canada appears to be reshaping how Canadians see themselves. A new Politico poll found that 52 percent of Canadians now describe themselves as very proud of their nationality, up sharply from 34 percent in December 2024.

Analysts link the surge to Trump’s repeated threats to annex Canada and his tariff measures targeting Canadian exports, including a 25 percent tariff imposed by executive order in February 2025 that triggered retaliatory measures from Ottawa.

Those tariffs were later struck down by the US Supreme Court, which ruled that Trump’s use of the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose them was unconstitutional.

Even so, the poll suggests the rise in patriotic sentiment has not translated into a sense of national unity, with most respondents saying Canada remains internally divided.

July 3, 2026 Posted by | Economics | , | Comments Off on Canada unveils new pipeline plan to cut US oil dependence

Vessel runs aground after deviating From Iran-designated Hormuz route

Al Mayadeen | July 1, 2026

A cargo vessel ran aground in the Strait of Hormuz on Wednesday while traveling a route not approved by Iran’s naval authorities, Iran’s IRIB reports.

The ship was identified as a foreign container ship, but the report didn’t provide any further details on the matter.

IRIB’s report seems to underscore Iran’s geographical control over the strategic waterway, through which a fifth of all oil and gas passes.

According to HormuzTracker, the Strait of Hormuz remains severely disrupted, showing little to no passage through the key waterway.

This confirms a total halt in detected commercial navigation activity, with no crude oil tankers, LNG carriers, bulk carriers, or container ships recorded moving through the Strait.

Transit through the Strait fell sharply following waves of US aggression against Iran and subsequent hostile rhetoric from Washington. Trackers showed that between June 24 and June 28, vessels passing through the Strait of Hormuz fell from a high of 74 to 22.

July 1, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Wars for Israel | , , , | Comments Off on Vessel runs aground after deviating From Iran-designated Hormuz route

Sanctions Lifted: Iran Selling Oil 20% More Expensive — Ghalibaf

Sputnik – 01.07.2026

Iranian Parliament Speaker and chief negotiator Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf has confirmed that oil exports are flowing again following the lifting of sanctions, with Tehran selling crude at prices 20% higher than before.

“Since the day we lifted the blockade, we have exported more than 40 million barrels of oil,” Ghalibaf said in a television interview, dismissing earlier skepticism about the impact of sanctions relief.

The lifting of sanctions was a key component of the US-Iran memorandum of understanding signed in June, which also included the release of frozen assets and the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz.

Ghalibaf also pushed back against claims by US President Donald Trump that the released funds could only be used to purchase American agricultural products.

“The Central Bank can purchase any goods it needs, at any price and in any currency worldwide,” Ghalibaf stated, asserting Iran’s full control over the use of its assets.

The Iranian parliament speaker said Tehran intends to “increase the prosperity of the Strait day by day,” with plans to boost maritime traffic and lower insurance fees for vessels transiting the waterway.

“We must show the world that security here is increasing day by day,” he added, suggesting that the strait’s reopening would be accompanied by a broader effort to restore confidence in the key global shipping route.

Overnight into June 18, Iran and the United States remotely signed a memorandum that provides for an end to the military conflict that began on February 28. The document also sets timelines for the US to lift its naval blockade of Iranian ports and for Iran to restore shipping in the Strait of Hormuz.

July 1, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Wars for Israel | , | Comments Off on Sanctions Lifted: Iran Selling Oil 20% More Expensive — Ghalibaf

The Middle East, Hormuz and the New Mercantilism

By Craig Murray | June 29, 2026

The provisional surrender document signed by Donald Trump appeared to represent a triumph for Iran and indeed for the world; but neither the USA nor Israel has the slightest sense of honour and they cannot be trusted to negotiate in good faith.

Iran knows this – after all, the USA twice attacked Iran actually during peace negotiations, on each occasion killing key Iranian negotiators.

To understand the American position, it is important to realise two key points:

  • Greater Israel is an absolute priority
  • Opening the Strait of Hormuz is not a US priority

While the US/Israeli alliance were defeated in their attempt to impose regime change on Iran, and indeed have consolidated the popular support of the Iranian government, they have succeeded in expanding Greater Israel. Israel has ethnically cleared and devastated a vast swathe of Southern Lebanon, expanding its military footprint, and notably attempting to repeat its ploy from November 2024 of pushing forward its armour under cover of ceasefire.

Israeli withdrawal from Southern Lebanon has been a major negotiating point for the Iranian government and is a key – indeed the very first – point of the Iran/USA MOU. But in an extraordinary coup aimed at negating that deal, the USA has signed a deal with Israel and its puppet Aoun regime in Lebanon which seeks to legitimise Israeli occupation of Southern Lebanon through the agreement of the “Lebanese government”.

This is an astonishing development. I did not think I could have a lower opinion of the appalling bloated traitor “General” “President” Aoun but not even I – nor I think any commentator – believed he would make such a deal with Israel. The plan is that the Americans, Israelis and Lebanese Army will act together to forcibly eliminate Hezbollah, and only after that is certified – by the Israelis – will the Israelis withdraw from Southern Lebanon.

Here are the operative paragraphs. Note that they carefully do not say in terms that Israel will actually leave Lebanon.

“3. …The Government of Israel and the Government of Lebanon commit to a reciprocal, sequenced process, with clear conditions, whereby the LAF will restore effective sovereign authority over all Lebanese territory, pending the verified disarmament of non-state armed groups and dismantlement of associated infrastructure, enabling the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) to progressively redeploy out of the Lebanese territory.”

“5 . …The Government of Israel underscores that the termination of this threat, through the disarmament and dismantlement of such groups in all of Lebanon and additional security arrangements to be agreed upon between the two countries, will eliminate any future need for IDF military action or presence in Lebanon.”

This is plainly completely incompatible with the USA/Iran MOU, which states as Point 1:

“The United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran and their allies in the current war are signing this MOU to declare the immediate and permanent termination of military operations on all fronts, including in Lebanon, and undertake from now on not to initiate any war or any military operation against each other, and to refrain from the threat or use of force against each other, and ensuring the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Lebanon. The final deal will confirm the permanent termination of the war on all fronts, including in Lebanon and other provisions of this paragraph.”

Of course, everybody knows that Israel will never withdraw voluntarily, any more than they withdrew from the Golan Heights. Annexation is plainly the goal and expansion of Greater Israel at least to the Litani River and probably further.

It is important to realise that this is not only Aoun seeking the annihilation of the Shia population of Southern Lebanon; he is also betraying his own community. Aoun is himself a Southern Lebanese Christian, and Israel has been destroying the homes, churches, hospitals and families of Southern Lebanese Christians with as much glee as they attack Muslims.

The agreement names two “pilot zones” where the combined Israeli and Lebanese Army forces will eliminate Hezbollah, followed by Israeli withdrawal from those zones. But these are zones which Israel is not currently occupying – they are areas where Israel was defeated in fighting by Hezbollah and which have been since subject to relentless Israeli bombardment.

So Aoun has agreed to support militarily an IDF advance further into Lebanon, against an agreement that Israel will be able to withdraw once these key Hezbollah redoubts have been destroyed. Even if Aoun were stupid enough to believe the Israelis will withdraw after the operation, this is a level of treachery it is difficult to comprehend.

Greater Israel is not a concept. It is a reality being created before our very eyes.

Israel now occupies 70% of Gaza and plainly the entire “Board of Peace” mechanism is nothing but smoke and mirrors, pure fraud. It has zero effect on the continued tightening of the Gaza concentration camp into an ever-shrinking area. Israeli settlements in the West Bank expand daily and every night the skies are red with Palestinian homes and crops burning. In East Jerusalem Palestinians are continually evicted and replaced by fresh European or American arrivals. In Syria, Israel is building permanent fortifications and its armour creeps forward field by field, with the full cooperation of “President” al-Jolani.

Iran was able to resist the combined military might of the USA and Israel. That is cause for celebration. But do not allow it to blind your eyes to the continued hard reality of the expansion of Greater Israel.

There is no gain for the US in the US/Iran Memorandum of Understanding which the US did not already possess before starting the war. It is therefore very possible, and in many senses valid, to read it as the formalisation of US defeat: a surrender document. Which is why you should be sceptical about US commitment to the terms.

The Strait of Hormuz was fully open before the US started the war. Allowing the flow of oil to resume has become a short-term US priority due to high domestic retail prices and pending elections, but the MOU envisages more Iranian control – and potentially fees – in the Strait than existed before the war.

There is no indication of restrictions on the Iranian nuclear programme that were not already available in the peaceful negotiations. Crucially there are no limitations on Iran’s vital ballistic missile production. The proposed relaxation of sanctions and release of frozen assets is a triumph for Iran and long overdue, and the $300 billion in dollars in reparations, from unspecified sources, is stunning.

So stunning of course that anyone with their head screwed on will realise there is no long term American intention to keep faith with the deal.

Trump is not stupid. There are many ways of characterising his kind of cunning, but it is not stupidity. He was not, as the prevailing narrative seeks to state, the only person in the World who did not realise the Strait of Hormuz would be closed by the war. The USA is quite happy to see the Strait of Hormuz closed, or permanently made more difficult and expensive to transit.

The key to understanding Trump’s position is his famous love of tariffs. Trump is a mercantilist. For many years the world worked on the general basis of accepting the economics of Adam Smith – that freedom of trade promoted universal, reciprocal wealth creation. That was the founding basis of the World Trade organisation, and is the internal philosophy of big trading blocs like the EU.

Trump rejects this and returns to the philosophy that other nations are all competitors, not potential partners, and that success lies not only in increasing your own production, but in damaging your rivals’ production – which ultimately will increase domestic production further. Trump rejects the basic premise of free trade.

The long prevailing belief in the beneficial effects of free trade historically was, as logic demands, accompanied by the demand for freedom of navigation.

Sweeping away tariffs goes hand in hand with sweeping away the controls on shipping which carry the goods. Before the rise of liberal economics, almost all states had practised mercantilism, with controls on shipping being a major source of state revenue. The magnificence of Kronborg Castle in Helsingør, in which Hamlet is set, was constructed entirely from revenues from tolls on ships exiting the Baltic by passing the strait it overlooks, for example.

Freedom of navigation was initially enforced ultimately by the British, and later the American, Navy. States attempting to enforce customary passage fees, for example in the Malaccan Strait, were classified as “pirates” and freedom of navigation became a routine justification for imperialist aggression and/or colonial occupation. Freedom of navigation eventually became customary international law, ultimately codified in the UN Convention of the Law of the Sea.

The simple truth is this: in openly abandoning the principle of free trade, the Trump regime has also abandoned the logically linked principle of freedom of navigation. This is evident not just in their indifference to the closure of the Strait of Hormuz. It is evident in the naval blockades of Cuba and Venezuela and above all in the worldwide blockade of Russian hydrocarbon deliveries, including the effective end of free passage through the Strait of Dover, and a de facto naval blockade of the Arctic passages.

Following the shale boom, the United States is a net hydrocarbon exporter. The USA balance of trade benefits from high hydrocarbon prices. Trump is doing everything he can to increase US hydrocarbon production by slashing environmental and other controls. This is a core Trump policy.

The USA does not import hydrocarbons through the Strait of Hormuz. That fact is key to Trump’s thinking.

In this mercantilist view, closure of the Strait has two benefits for the USA.

  • It disadvantages rival hydrocarbon suppliers
  • It disadvantages rival industrial competitors in Europe and Asia who do get hydrocarbons through Hormuz.

This is exactly the same logic behind the destruction of Nord Stream 2. The same mercantilist system also explains the effective seizure through naval blockade and control of Venezuela’s oil production, and the blockade of Russian hydrocarbons through sanctions and the “shadow fleet” propaganda disguising another naval blockade.

The UK’s recent actions in the Dover strait indicate that the West, not just the United States has surrendered the principle of freedom of navigation in straits.

Trump believes, as he has repeatedly stated in public, that domestic fuel prices in the USA are a blip and will equalise as the USA increases its domestic fuel production and Venezuelan fuel production. However this was not happening in time for the mid-term elections which is why reopening the Strait of Hormuz became a temporary priority that occasioned the ceasefire and MOU with Iran.

None of this implies good faith negotiation or a real prospect for a lasting peace.

June 29, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Wars for Israel | , , , , , , | Comments Off on The Middle East, Hormuz and the New Mercantilism

Strait of Hormuz Remains Open for Those Who Adhere to PGSA Protocols, But Global Economy Faces Inflationary Shock

By Larry C. Johnson | SONAR21 | June 28, 2026

After an exchange of missiles and drones on Saturday, the US backed down and declined to continue striking Iran. Qatar reportedly intervened to broker a new ceasefire. The US and Iran, in response to Qatar’s intervention, agreed to halt attacks against each other and plan to meet in Doha on Tuesday for technical talks aimed at resolving their dispute over the Strait of Hormuz, according to Axios.

The US-Iran meeting was originally planned to take place in Switzerland on Monday and focus on Iran’s nuclear program. Now the talks will take place in Doha on Tuesday. Iran’s position is firm… Traffic through the Strait must be carried out in accordance with the PGSA protocols. The US boxed itself in a corner with the language of the MoU:

5. Upon the signing of this MoU, the Islamic Republic of Iran will make arrangements using its best efforts for the safe passage of commercial vessels, with no charge for 60 days only, from the Persian Gulf to the Sea of Oman, and vice versa. The traffic of commercial vessels will immediately start, and considering the need for removing the technical and military obstacles, and de-mining by the Islamic Republic of Iran, will be instated within 30 days. The Islamic Republic of Iran will conduct dialogue with the Sultanate of Oman, to define the future administration and maritime services in the Strait of Hormuz, in discussions with other Persian Gulf Littoral States, in line with applicable international law and the sovereign rights of coastal states of the Strait of Hormuz.

The MoU give Iran the sole responsibility for making arrangements for the “safe passage of commercial vessels” through the Strait of Hormuz. If the US had insisted on including Oman and the other Gulf nations in the MoU then Iran would be obligated to consult with them. But the US accepted Iran’s language and Iran will insist there is no compromise on its sovereign right to manage traffic flow through the Strait.

While the world markets remain fixated on oil passing through the Strait, they are ignoring the profound impact of the halt in the shipment of Helium, Sulfur and Urea. The global economy is already experiencing the pain of the reduction in the supply of these commodities and the world will experience a global inflationary shock. Let’s look at each one.

Helium

The structural problem: Roughly one-third of the world’s helium production is impacted by the crisis, due to both the disruption of LNG production in Qatar and the very time-sensitive nature of helium transportation.

The mechanism was twofold. On March 2, state-owned QatarEnergy halted all LNG and associated production at Ras Laffan Industrial City following Iranian drone and missile strikes. On March 4, QatarEnergy declared force majeure on affected contracts. The company’s CEO stated that production would not restart until the conflict ended, and that even then, normalisation of deliveries would require “weeks to months.” Iran then struck Ras Laffan again on March 18-19.

Price movement: The shock hit fast. “The spot price for helium has moved up pretty dramatically. I would say 70 to 100 percent in a week,” said Phil Kornbluth, president of Kornbluth Helium Consulting and a 30-year veteran of the industry. Bank of America put the initial surge at 40%, while other estimates put prices at between 70% and 100% higher in some cases within a little more than a week.

The situation had an additional physical complication that other commodities don’t face. Roughly one-third of the world’s cryogenic helium ISO containers were stranded in or around Qatar. Repositioning this equipment after the conflict would require a minimum of three months, creating a supply gap that outlasts the conflict itself. Liquefied helium evaporates within roughly 45 days, meaning stranded inventory cannot be held for later delivery. Ships rerouting via the Cape of Good Hope face an additional 3,500 nautical miles, extending transit times by 10 to 14 days, during which liquid helium experiences boil-off losses of 15–20% of cargo volume.

By June 20, prices remained substantially elevated with no clear return path, because the damage to Ras Laffan is physical, not merely logistical. Even after Iran and the United States announced a ceasefire, the Strait of Hormuz remained largely closed due to overlapping blockades, meaning that even if production restarted, Qatari helium had no viable sea route to market. The structural problem persists through the MOU period.

Given Helium’s critical role in the production of computer chips, the price of computers and smart phones is soaring. Apple, for example, recently announced significant price hikes for the iPhone 17 Pro Max (+$200) and the 16-inch MacBook Pro (+$300).

Sulfur

Pre-war baseline — already stressed: The sulfur price to Indonesia rose from $101 per metric ton in July 2024 to $554 per metric ton by January 2026 as high-pressure acid leaching (HPAL) expansion drove demand — a 440% increase before the Iran conflict added further pressure. The market was already at multi-year highs before February 28.

The geographic exposure: Ships moving through the strait carry 24% of the world’s sulfur, a feedstock for sulfuric acid used to make metals like nickel and copper, as well as fertilizer and household cleaning products. The Middle East accounts for roughly 24% of global sulfur production and approximately 50% of global seaborne sulfur trade, all of which transits the Strait of Hormuz.

Price movement: Since the start of Operation Epic Fury, the price of sulfur has nearly doubled. Gulf states typically provide 45% of the seaborne sulfur trade through the Strait of Hormuz, and Iran’s blockade caused a 30% price spike by halting half of the global supply, creating bottlenecks in mineral extraction. Sulfur shortages were already leading to 20–30% output reductions for critical mineral miners.

The downstream cascade was severe. The World Bank noted that sulfur prices had doubled since January by April 2026, and that China’s move to tighten exports — in response to its own domestic shortfall as Persian Gulf imports dried up — added upward pressure on DAP (diammonium phosphate) prices. China banned sulfuric acid exports, impacting among other things copper production in Chile, which imported sulfuric acid as a consumable.

By June 20, with the MOU in place but Hormuz only partially normalising and QatarEnergy yet to fully resume operations, sulfur prices remained substantially above pre-crisis levels. As of May 2026, prices remained elevated, with the global fertilizer index projected to rise over 30% for the year amid persistent supply risks and rerouting challenges.

Urea

Pre-war baseline: Before the war, the cost of FOB granular urea in Egypt — a bellwether of nitrogen fertilizers — was $400 to $490 per metric ton. US retail prices hovered in the same general range through mid-February.

The geographic exposure: The Arabian Gulf is the central hub for global agriculture, accounting for at least 20% of all seaborne fertiliser exports. The dependency is even more acute for urea, the world’s most widely used nitrogen fertiliser, with 46% of global trade originating from the region.

Phase 1 — initial shock (late February to March): Oxford Economics’ Alpine Macro said urea and ammonia prices had surged by around 50% and 20%, respectively, since the war began. By March 3, a contract was signed for the supply of urea from Algeria at $618 per ton on FOB terms — the highest figure since 2022.

Phase 2 — peak (April 2026): Nitrogen (urea) prices climbed above $850 per metric ton in April, up 80% since February and the highest level since the 2022 commodity spike. US retail: Urea had a national average as high as $826 per ton in early April surges, up 34–35% month-over-month in some periods, and urea prices FOB Middle East reached around $795 per ton due to regional disruptions.

Phase 3 — partial retreat (May–June 2026): The urea market was the fastest to respond to the MOU and the partial Hormuz normalisation, partly because it is more fungible than helium and partly because the ceasefire allowed some rerouting via land corridors. FAO forecast international urea prices to ease from June as fertiliser shipments resume from the Persian Gulf and China returns to export markets after issuing new export quotas. After the de-escalation of tensions and statements regarding a ceasefire, the market experienced an oversupply, which led to a significant price drop.

However, in light of the events of the past three days, the expectations that ships carrying urea will be exiting the Persian Gulf are overly optimistic and the price is likely to rise until there is a clear sign that ships will be passing the Strait in accordance with the PGSA protocols.

Video Interviews

June 29, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Wars for Israel | | Comments Off on Strait of Hormuz Remains Open for Those Who Adhere to PGSA Protocols, But Global Economy Faces Inflationary Shock

Iran mocks US for ‘solving’ domestic hunger problem, lecturing others on issue

Press TV – June 26, 2026

Iran has mocked the United States for “solving” its domestic hunger problem by simply stopping reports while lecturing other countries on the issue.

Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei made the remarks in an X post on Friday after US President Donald Trump claimed that Iran has “a hunger problem” and his deputy JD Vance alleged that the country’s unfrozen assets could help “feed” its people.

Baghaei cited a report by the World Hunger Education Service that found more than 47 million people in the United States, including 1 in 5 children, cannot consistently access or afford enough nutritious food to live healthy lives.

He further referred to another report by the NGO Feeding America that said 47 million Americans struggle daily with hunger.

“The ‘solution’ from US authorities? In September 2024, the USDA (US Department of Agriculture) quietly terminated its 30-year-old annual report on household food insecurity — effectively ending the official tracking and acknowledgment of hunger in America,” the spokesman said.

“So, after ‘solving’ domestic hunger by simply stopping the reports, Washington now feels qualified to lecture the world about hunger elsewhere.”

Baghaei added, “Charity begins at home — and it is desperately needed there.”

The latest Household Food Security report released by the US Department of Agriculture’s Economic Research Service for 2024 revealed that 47.9 million people lived in food-insecure households last year.

One in seven households (13.7 percent) in America experienced food insecurity, or lack of access to an affordable, nutritious diet, in 2024, according to the report. About 14.1 million American children lived in households that experienced food insecurity in 2024, a slight increase from the 13.8 million children reported in 2023.

The findings highlighted a deepening crisis in the US amid cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), which enables low-income households to afford more healthy foods and boosts families’ food purchases.

Because the USDA’s 2025 survey data which would have been released in 2026 was canceled, no official government data on hunger for 2026 is available.

However, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York has stepped in to fill the gap. In a report released in May 2026, the New York Fed presented new findings on food insecurity based on its Survey of Consumer Expectations.

The New York Fed survey found a “remarkable increase in food insecurity,” particularly among lower-income, lower-educated households, and households with young children.

The survey noted that between late 2025 and early 2026, the share of households reporting they had to skip meals or had insufficient food rose.

For households earning under $50,000 a year, the rate of those reporting not having enough food or kids missing meals reached 19.7% in early 2026, up from 16% in late 2025.

Nationwide, the share of households with limited or uncertain access to adequate food more than doubled from 4% in June 2020 to 10% in early 2026.

June 26, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Progressive Hypocrite | , | Comments Off on Iran mocks US for ‘solving’ domestic hunger problem, lecturing others on issue

13-18 DAYS: The PRACTICAL DIESEL BUFFER… Does It Preclude Bombing Iran?

By Larry C. Johnson | SONAR21 | June 26, 2026

I am indebted to my new friend who is an energy expert ,and currently working in the Persian Gulf, for explaining why the US is facing a very serious risk of a domestic energy crisis. If ignorance is bliss then I’ve spent my last 71 years happily believing that the conversion of oil to fuel for cars, trucks and planes was a simple process. Boy, was I wrong. The United States is facing a potential crisis surrounding the production of diesel and aviation fuel. According to this person, who has 35 years experience in the oil industry:

The U.S. does not have a month of freely deliverable diesel in a stress event. The headline EIA number shows 106.1 million barrels of total distillate fuel oil stocks and 3.631 million b/d of four-week average distillate product supplied, implying 29.2 days on paper. But that national inventory includes barrels in pipelines, refineries, terminals, regional storage, and operational positions that cannot all be allocated immediately to critical distribution hubs.
Operational estimate: applying a 45%-60% practical deliverability factor to total distillate stocks leaves roughly 48-64 million barrels of usable, allocable diesel-equivalent supply. At 3.631 million b/d, that is approximately 13.1-17.5 days, rounded to 13-18 days.

So let me explain how he reached this conclusion. Think of the diesel buffer as the gap between when supply stops flowing and when the economy starts breaking. Thirteen days is not a comfortable cushion — it’s essentially no cushion at all, because the economy runs on diesel in ways that cannot be deferred.

Diesel is not a lifestyle fuel. It moves every truck on every highway, powers every locomotive, runs every tractor during planting and harvest, and drives every piece of heavy construction equipment. When a family decides gas prices are too high, they drive less. When a freight company decides diesel is too expensive or too scarce, it cannot defer the shipment — the grocery store shelves just go empty. Diesel demand is largely inelastic. The economy cannot negotiate with it the way it can with gasoline.

Let’s use the worst case: 13 days. Thirteen days means that if anything disrupts the supply chain — a refinery outage, a pipeline failure, a crude supply disruption — the effects reach the real economy within two weeks. There is no meaningful time to arrange alternatives. A tanker from a replacement crude source takes longer than 13 days to arrive. A refinery turnaround takes longer than 13 days to complete. The buffer is shorter than the lead time for almost every possible remedy.

The geography makes it worse. The 13-day figure is a national average, which means some regions have more and some have less. The Southeast is particularly exposed, being heavily dependent on the Colonial Pipeline, which is itself a single point of failure that demonstrated its criticality when it was shut down for six days in 2021. Six days is nearly half the total national buffer.

What about aviation fuel? Here is where the two problems collide mechanically, and why it creates a genuine bind rather than just a theoretical tradeoff.

Diesel and jet fuel are not different products from different parts of the refinery. They are competing claims on the same physical fraction of crude oil — the middle distillate cut that comes off the atmospheric distillation column in the same boiling range. Every refinery scheduling decision is, at its core, a daily argument about how to divide that fraction between the two products.

With a 13-day diesel buffer, the refinery cannot let diesel output fall. The economic and political consequences of a diesel shortage materialize too quickly and too severely. Diesel production becomes, in practical terms, the floor that cannot be breached.

Now layer in a wartime demand for military jet fuel. JP-8 is pulled from the same middle distillate fraction. The military’s operational requirements are also non-negotiable — aircraft do not fly on goodwill. So you now have two inelastic demands competing for one fixed supply of middle distillate from each barrel of crude processed.

The refinery’s response to this bind is constrained in every direction:

It cannot simply run more crude. Crude supply itself may be disrupted — this is precisely the scenario the Persian Gulf blockade creates. And even if crude is available, refinery throughput is limited by physical capacity. You cannot run 110% of nameplate capacity.

It cannot shift to lighter crude to get more barrels. Light crude produces proportionally more gasoline and less middle distillate. Running lighter crude when you need diesel and jet fuel makes the allocation problem worse, not better, because you are shrinking the pool of middle distillate that both are fighting over.

It cannot get more middle distillate out of sour crude than the chemistry allows. A barrel of sour crude from the Persian Gulf typically yields around 20–25% middle distillates by volume. That fraction is fixed by the molecular composition of the oil. You can optimize within a range, but you cannot double the yield through operational choices.

Hydrogen becomes a choke point. Making JP-8 from sour crude to military specification requires substantial hydrogen — for sulfur removal, for aromatic ring saturation to meet smoke point requirements, and for freeze point management. Making ULSD from the same sour crude also requires substantial hydrogen — even more, to reach the ≤15 ppm sulfur specification. A refinery’s hydrogen generation capacity is finite. Every cubic foot of hydrogen diverted to jet fuel processing is a cubic foot unavailable for diesel desulfurization. At the margin, maximizing JP-8 production makes the diesel quality problem worse, not just the diesel volume problem.

The certification delay adds time pressure. Switching refinery configuration between maximizing diesel and maximizing jet fuel is not instant. It takes days to a week to restabilize the unit operations and certify the product meets specification. In a 13-day buffer environment, a week of transition time is not a casual cost — it represents a material fraction of the entire safety margin consumed by the act of reconfiguring production.

Under normal peacetime conditions, refineries optimise their middle distillate split based on market prices — jet fuel commands a premium, so they lean toward jet. The diesel buffer stays comfortable and the system works.

The Iran war changes all of that simultaneously in three directions at once:

First, the diesel buffer starts shrinking. Persian Gulf sour crude — even though only 8% of US imports — supplied roughly 17% of the medium-sour grades that US complex refiners prefer for middle distillate production. That quality gap is not easily filled by Canadian heavy or domestic light sweet crude without refinery adjustment. Diesel output drops or becomes more expensive per barrel just as the buffer needs defending.

Second, military JP-8 demand spikes. A naval campaign in the Persian Gulf, sustained air operations, and a mobilised logistics tail consume enormous quantities of aviation fuel. The military doesn’t queue behind civilian demand — it has priority. So the refinery is simultaneously being squeezed from both ends of the middle distillate barrel: the military is claiming more jet fuel from the top, and the diesel buffer is bleeding out from the bottom.

Third, the refinery cannot easily solve this by running harder. As explained earlier, maximising JP-8 from sour crude requires pulling a lighter, narrower distillate cut. This is precisely the action that reduces diesel yield — the heavier tail of the middle distillate that would have become diesel is either lost to the vacuum unit or downcycled to fuel oil. The more aggressively refineries respond to military jet fuel demand, the faster the diesel buffer erodes.

This creates a three-way constraint with no clean solution:

  • Protect the diesel buffer → limit JP-8 output → constrain military operations
  • Maximise JP-8 for military → draw down diesel buffer → trigger civilian supply cascade before the war ends
  • Try to do both → run refineries at maximum utilisation → lose the ability to flex for any further shock, with no margin for equipment failures, maintenance, or a second disruption

The 13-day buffer is what makes this bind acute rather than manageable. With sixty days of diesel inventory, a refinery operator can tolerate shifting the middle distillate split toward jet fuel for several weeks without civilian consequences. With thirteen days, the same shift starts a visible countdown almost immediately. Now do you understand why Donald Trump signed the MoU with Iran?

If the United States decides to renew its bombing campaign of Iran, that would likely trigger the stress event outlined above. Based on that fact I believe that Donald Trump, notwithstanding his threats, will not run the risk of crashing the US economy by bombing Iran again.

Video interviews

June 26, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Wars for Israel | Comments Off on 13-18 DAYS: The PRACTICAL DIESEL BUFFER… Does It Preclude Bombing Iran?

Prof Seyed Marandi: WILL the US COLLAPSE the GLOBAL ECONOMY?

Daniel Davis / Deep Dive – June 25, 2026

June 25, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Video, Wars for Israel | , , , | Comments Off on Prof Seyed Marandi: WILL the US COLLAPSE the GLOBAL ECONOMY?

Iranian Victory – Gulf States Creating ‘Regional Security Framework’ With Iran

By Justin K.P. | The Dissident | June 24, 2026

The failed U.S./Israeli war on Iran was not only a major loss for the United States and Israel and an Iranian victory, but it has also helped Iran’s status as a serious regional power.

This is best underscored by the fact that the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states,-after facing Iranian retaliatory strikes against U.S. bases and assets during the war, is no longer relying on the United States for protection and is looking to form a security alliance with Iran.

Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman al-Thani, the Prime Minister of Qatar, told the Financial Times that “Part of what we are doing now, as regional countries, is to create this regional security framework between us and Iran, that will hopefully have economic co-operation in the future between all of us — to bring the region back to stability”.

He similarly told Al Jazeera, “Iran is a neighbouring country, and dialogue with it remains necessary to guarantee the security and stability of the region”.

This shows that the GCC no longer trust the United States to protect them, given that “Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Bahrain, Kuwait, and Qatar host US military bases and were attacked by Iran during the war. Washington struggled to supply its Gulf allies with enough interceptors to defend against Iranian missile attacks,” as journalist Kyle Anzalone noted.

As a result, the GCC states are seemingly deciding to stop relying on the United States for defence and make a security agreement with Iran, which has cemented itself as a serious regional power.

“They have to deal with Iran because it is not going anywhere”, Gawdat Bahgat, a professor of national security affairs at Washington’s National Defense University said referring to the Gulf nations new approach to Iran.

“Even while Iran attacked them, they kept diplomatic channels open because the day after, they and Iran have no choice but to live together” he noted.

“Our aim is that Iran flourishes and their economy grows; and our investment basically has always been purely on commercial decisions”, Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman al-Thani told the Financial Times.

This destroys the U.S./Israeli goal of isolating Iran, instead causing regional countries to forge closer ties to Iran for their own national security interests.

This is yet another way the U.S/Israeli war on Iran was a loss for the U.S. empire and a win for Iran and its influence as a serious regional power.

June 25, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Wars for Israel | , , , , | Comments Off on Iranian Victory – Gulf States Creating ‘Regional Security Framework’ With Iran

IRGC Navy rejects new Strait of Hormuz shipping routes

Al Mayadeen | June 25, 2026

Iran’s Islamic Revolution Guard Corps (IRGC) Navy has warned that safe passage through the Strait of Hormuz is only possible via routes announced by Iran, rejecting newly declared navigation lanes and insisting that vessels coordinate directly with Iranian naval authorities.

In a statement issued in the name of the IRGC Navy, Tehran said that “some authorities” had recently announced new shipping routes in the strategic waterway “without informing or coordinating with the Islamic Republic of Iran,” saying the move is “unacceptable and completely dangerous.”

The statement stressed that the only authorized passage routes through the Strait of Hormuz are those designated by Iran, warning that navigation outside these channels is “very dangerous and prohibited.”

“All vessels are warned to strictly avoid any navigation outside the notified routes,” the IRGC Navy said, adding that coordination via Channel 16 with Iranian naval forces is mandatory and that “violator vessels will be dealt with.”

The Strait of Hormuz, a narrow maritime chokepoint linking the Gulf to the Arabian Sea, remains one of the world’s most sensitive shipping corridors, with competing claims over navigation management and maritime safety procedures.

Regional diplomatic efforts underway

The warning comes amid renewed diplomatic activity involving Gulf states, Iran, and regional mediators aimed at reshaping maritime governance in the strait.

On Wednesday, Qatari Prime Minister Mohammed bin Abdulrahman al-Thani arrived in Muscat for talks with Omani officials on launching a new round of negotiations involving Iran, Iraq, and Gulf Arab states on the future management of the waterway, according to Reuters, citing a diplomat briefed on the discussions.

The proposed talks are reported to be separate from ongoing Iran-US negotiations and existing de-mining arrangements. According to the same source, Gulf states are expected to push for the removal of transit fees, while Iran may propose alternative charges linked to environmental, navigation, and security services.

The initiative is said to stem from a recent memorandum of understanding calling for structured discussions between Iran, Oman, Gulf states, and Iraq on maritime governance in the strait, with Pakistan floated as a potential mediator.

Separately, broader regional reconciliation talks are expected to be held in Riyadh involving Iran, Gulf Arab states, and other regional actors.

Oman announces new shipping lanes

Earlier on Wednesday, Oman announced the establishment of two temporary shipping routes in the Strait of Hormuz, positioned north and south of the existing lane, in coordination with the International Maritime Organization (IMO).

Under a phased operational plan, vessels will be grouped and contacted individually with navigation instructions, including designated routes and departure timings. Oman’s maritime authorities said shipmasters remain responsible for conducting independent risk assessments, and vessels are required to keep Automatic Identification Systems active while reporting hazards to the Oman Maritime Security Centre.

Oman also confirmed that no transit tolls would be imposed on ships passing through the strait, in line with understandings reached in recent Iran-US discussions.

Joint Iran-Oman framework

The developments follow earlier agreements between Iran and Oman to establish a joint committee tasked with discussing the future management of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz.

The committee is part of broader consultations between Tehran and Muscat aimed at enhancing maritime safety, coordinating navigation rules, and addressing associated services and costs in line with international law and sovereign rights of coastal states.

Both sides have previously reiterated their commitment to keeping the strait open for international navigation while maintaining sovereignty over territorial waters, underscoring the strategic importance of continued coordination to ensure stability in the waterway.

June 25, 2026 Posted by | Economics | , , , | Comments Off on IRGC Navy rejects new Strait of Hormuz shipping routes

There Are No Budget Constraints In New York City: “Coastal Resiliency” Edition

By Francis Menton | Manhattan Contrarian | June 14, 2026

I often make fun of the federal government as operating with what it thinks is an “infinite credit card,” outside and beyond any budget restraints. And thus all problems, real or imaginary, can be solved by dispensing some of the infinite federal loot. In its partial defense, the federal government does have the ability to print money, although that ability too eventually runs into limits.

And then we have New York City. The City has no ability to print money, but nevertheless operates as if there are no constraints on spending. The sky is the limit! Recently I wrote about how the City spends about triple the national average per student on preK-12 education, and more than double the national average per capita on Medicaid. Those are crazy excessive amounts, but at least education and healthcare are bona fide purposes for the spending of resources.

But how about spending huge amounts of money on pure fantasies that accomplish absolutely nothing? Yes, we have that too. For today’s example, how about “climate resiliency”?

Maybe you don’t even know what that is. I’m not sure that I do either. A good summary is that it is a substance-free buzzword that is being used to dispense tens of billions of dollars on consultants and construction projects along the coastline, without any discernible benefits within the lifetimes of anyone around today.

About a year ago, in April 2025, I had a post about a project the City was in the process of building at something called Wagner Park, basically a small lawn area along the water near the Southern tip of Manhattan Island. Wagner Park accounts for about 400 feet of Manhattan waterfront, out of a total of about 32 miles of shoreline for Manhattan (and some 520 miles for New York City as a whole). The City was trucking in vast amounts of dirt in order to raise the level of the park by about 10 feet. The idea, supposedly, is to protect against a rise in the level of the sea that climate doomsayers claim may occur by some time around, say, the year 2100. The cost of the Wagner Park “resiliency” project, as reported in my April 2025 post, was some $300 million.

Well, now it seems that the Wagner Park insanity is metastacizing like a cancer. New and far bigger shoreline-raising projects have now gotten underway both East and West of the relatively small Wagner Park effort. One such project covers about a mile of the waterfront of Battery Park City on the Lower West Side, and another covers 2+ miles of the waterfront at East River Park on the Lower East Side. Steve Cuozzo covers the story in a piece in the New York Post on June 10. Here is his description of the work now getting underway in Battery Park City:

At Le District’s alfresco Battery Park café, customers who previously enjoyed views of the river and the New Jersey skyline now face a chain-link fence and roaring excavation machines. Battery Park City’s beloved Hudson River Esplanade, a treasure of Lower Manhattan, will be closed for years to come as it’s needlessly reconfigured. Its off-limits condition shocks those who loved its airy refuge from the city’s thrum — and appalls nearby residents of this once magnificent neighborhood.

And over in East River Park:

In the now “resilient” segment south of the Williamsburg Bridge, scores of old trees have given way to saplings that might throw shade in a mere 25 years. The mostly level recreation lawns that were favorite gathering grounds for residents of nearby NYCHA housing projects have sprouted hilly, segmented zones mostly too small for easy use.

Cuozzo quotes residents from both the Lower East and West Side areas as being appalled by the endless construction and the desecration of their prior waterfront parks. But then there is Mayor Mamdani, who recently commented on the opening of the Wagner Park project:

The area is “on the front lines of the climate crisis,” [Mamdani] lectured. “With phase one now complete, we are taking a major step toward safeguarding Lower Manhattan . . . from rising seas and stronger storms.”

What “rising seas” and “stronger storms” exactly? Cuozzo correctly points out that the UN itself has recently backed away from its extreme climate doom scenarios. The idea of sudden sea level rise of multiple feet was always ridiculous. Meanwhile, the costs are enormous. This City release from October 2024 puts the cost of the East River Park project at $1.45 billion. In the same release, a guy named Rohit Aggarwala, then Commissioner of the City’s Department of Environmental protection, boasted that the City had “more than a dozen similar projects now underway, from Staten Island to the Rockaways to Red Hook.”

If you are a bureaucrat in New York City, just somehow attach the word “climate” to your budget demand and they’ll give you whatever you ask for. Keep this in mind next time the City comes around looking for another tax increase.

June 23, 2026 Posted by | Economics | | Comments Off on There Are No Budget Constraints In New York City: “Coastal Resiliency” Edition

The UN’s plan to levy taxes on global trade is a sinister power grab

If these precedents on emissions charges and compulsory offsets stand, the appetite of unelected institutions for fiscal power will grow

By Brenda Shaffer | The Telegraph | June 22, 2026

International energy and climate policies stand at the center of one of the most defining political issues of our time: the expanding power of unelected institutions such as the United Nations in the lives of people in democratic societies.

Two UN agencies – the International Maritime Organization (IMO) and the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) – plan to tax global shipping and aviation for their greenhouse gas emissions. This would mark the first time an unelected institution has levied taxes on major sectors of global economic activity. The planned levies would expand the power and budgets of these agencies with no democratic accountability.

Regardless of one’s views on climate change, proponents of democracy should recognize the threat posed by taxation without representation and oppose this power grab by the UN.

If implemented, the UN agency levies will raise global shipping and aviation costs, adding to inflation worldwide. Shipping produces just around 2 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions, yet a UN tax on it would add costs to virtually every traded good. Shipping carries more than 80 per cent of global trade, a share expected to grow. Civil aviation accounts for approximately 2.5 percent of global emissions. The planned carbon offset requirement would add further costs to international flights.

In October 2026, the IMO will take a final vote on launching its carbon tax. The ICAO’s requirement that airlines purchase carbon offsets for international flights comes into force in January 2027.

If implemented, the IMO scheme will rake in billions from shippers while doing little to lower greenhouse gas emissions: there is simply not enough zero-carbon or low-carbon fuel available that meets the IMO’s criteria. The IMO estimates the scheme will add between $11bn (£8.1bn) and $13bn (£9.6bn) to its budget.

The IMO taxation scheme would at minimum double shipping fuel costs. The current generation of low-carbon fuels – hydrogen, methanol, and ammonia – are not suitable for wide use in the shipping industry. These fuels are more flammable than those in use today, increasing risks for ships and crews. If adopted, insurance costs would soar, particularly following the first inevitable accident attributable to these fuels.

June 23, 2026 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Economics, Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity | , | Comments Off on The UN’s plan to levy taxes on global trade is a sinister power grab

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »