Merz against Germans and Europeans
By Ricardo Nuno Costa – New Eastern Outlook – April 1, 2025
The last session of the Bundestag under the Scholz government paved the way for the extraordinary injection of 500 billion euros into the German economy, with the votes of the CDU/CSU, the SPD and the Greens. Behind this special fund, which involved an amendment to the Basic Law, is an attempt to revive the country’s economy, which has been stagnating since it declared economic war on its biggest energy supplier, Russia, in 2022. More worryingly, the easing of the debt brake that has now been approved does not set any future limits, which could lead Berlin into a debt spiral. For now, a week later, there is already talk of additional spending of at least 350 billion euros on this package. The decades-long brand image of German ‘fiscal discipline’, of the transparency of its economy and of Germany as the continent’s safeguard of monetary stability is thus falling apart.
The new chancellor, Friedrich Merz, who has always sold the image of being a ‘frugal’ and ‘rigorous’ politician and has vehemently opposed any change to the debt ceiling, is the mastermind and the one who will effectively direct the implementation of this fund over the next 12 years, thus being able, as head of government, to take out loans for public investments or direct payments from the federal budget. Calculated, the amount comes to a staggering 42 billion extra euros a year, almost a tenth more than the last federal budget. The money will flow into the German economy and generate opportunities, but at what cost?
Merz was for years the head of BlackRock Deutschland, the German branch of the world’s largest ‘shadow bank’, the asset manager BlackRock. In 2020, in order to run for the head of CDU/CSU), he formally stepped down from his position at the New York giant. Now, the opposition (and even members of the current grand coalition with the SPD) believe that the Chancellor wants to continue lobbying for the interests of his bosses on the other side of the Atlantic and combine Germany’s rearmament projects with an infrastructure programme from which BlackRock and the German arms giant Rheinmetall will make juicy profits at the expense of the public purse. MP and former parliamentary leader of the Social Democrats, Rolf Mützenich, accuses Merz of wanting to do business with foreign and security policy by keeping Germany under the thumb of the US military industrial complex. It was the best way he could find to ‘appease Donald Trump’, the SPD MP recently told Spiegel. So it’s clear that there’s no cut with the US, despite all the murmuring and outrage that Trump’s election has caused among a frustrated European elite, who blindly bet everything on Kamala Harris.
From austerity to debt
The Federal Republic, despite its reputation for austerity, is a champion of ‘special funds’. From the Marshall Plan to the country’s opaque and hurried reunification process, Berlin has always found ways to bypass legality or even the rules of the common market in order to keep its public accounts apparently healthy. The current special fund is by far the largest of the 29 previously approved. The Financial Markets Stabilisation Fund (200 billion in 2008), Covid (150 billion in 2020), the Armed Forces (100 billion in 2022) and the ‘energy crisis’ (200 billion in 2022) were the biggest. Through these extra budgets, Berlin has been hiding the true scale of its public debt and budget deficit for the last 20 years. Now things are clearer and many questions arise.
Germany is Europe’s largest economy, but it has been contracting for three years. The Berlin government actually has more liquidity than ever because it is taxing its citizens more than ever, but it needs to use these tricks to approve potentially unnecessary and exaggerated plans. In the current conditions of de-industrialisation, does Germany have the capacity to generate the physical wealth to get the economy growing again, or will the operation result in a setback that could aggravate the inflation already persistent since the special fund against Covid? Experts warn that the initiative will not have the capacity to generate economic competitiveness. Issuing debt for government programmes will do nothing to address this major shortcoming in the German economy.
Consequences for Europe
The approval of this fund further corroborates the idea that Europe as a whole – and not just the South, once vilely labelled the ‘PIGS’ – has, in fact, never left the crisis of 2007-08 and that its political classes (with Germany at the forefront) have insistently done the opposite of what they should have done.
How will France, Italy, Spain and the other Eurozone partners react to a move that could be considered ‘dumping’ between partners? Could this injection cause a new financial derivatives’ crisis?
Merz’s move had the immediate effect of boosting the European public debt market, causing the value of bonds to fall and their rates to rise. This dragged down Italian, Spanish, French and even Japanese bonds as a result. With the German state competing aggressively for new clients to finance its debt, it is forcing its European partners to follow suit. Discord is served. In other words, what Merz is doing is using his position as the Eurozone’s strong link by using the whole of Europe to pay for his businesses.
Does the new government in Berlin intend to finance its economy around sovereign bonds and a Frankfurt stock exchange with little more than a central European reach, and try to compete with the heavyweights of the global markets in New York, London, Tokyo, Shanghai and Hong Kong? Is this realistic?
Merz’s plan coincides with the European Commission’s Readiness 2030 programme to issue another 650 billion euros in debt outside the Budget Pact and another 150 billion to be disbursed in European guarantees. The biggest debt issue since the ‘bazooka’ against Covid, which is still being paid for in the form of inflation. The project calls for states to allocate at least 1.5% of their budgets to defence, in order to launch a continent-wide arms industry and supposedly create jobs in the sector. No one has asked the states (let alone their people) if they want to live in a war economy. No one has said how these 650 billion will be paid back, or what guarantees the ‘European guarantees’ give a State.
The expansive policies of German governments since 2008 have been controversial, even within their own borders. The Federal Court of Audit harshly criticised the new fund: ‘The financial management of the federal government has thus been largely externalised,’ it accused. It warned that the financial package ‘could result in billions of euros in interest costs’. This will have catastrophic economic and social consequences for future generations.
Merz is betting on public spending, but in reality this is a kind of untimely neoliberal Keynesianism, as it will be financed by the US speculative banks, to which the new chancellor has always been closely linked. The whole process seems less than transparent, just to say the least.
Problematic social situation
For big businesses, the arms industry, construction companies, the speculator class and the financial sector, the injection of such a huge amount of money will have the effect of energising the economy for a while and improving some ageing infrastructure. But for the small citizens (the overwhelming majority of the population), the consequences of the current announcement will be devastating. Merz has already announced a ‘radical reform’ of pensions and social welfare benefits.
A good example of the state of public accounts in Germany is yet to be seen. Recently, the scandal broke at the hands of hundreds of thousands of small business owners across the country, who saw their businesses almost bankrupted during the lockdown campaign of the Merkel 4 and Scholz governments. In an extremely deceitful manoeuvre, the banks mandated by the state administrations have now (four years later) demanded that they return up to thousands of euros in ‘aid’ per head, which the state authorities granted them in compensation for the forced paralysis of trade. This is a simple transfer of wealth from the country’s small productive sectors directly into the pockets of the financial-technocratic class (banks, lawyers and accountants), with the public administrations acting as bait.
Social discontent is also being felt in the numerous strikes in various sectors, particularly public transport and airports.
In a recent joint interview, the directors of two popular publications, one linked to the left and the other close to the AfD, agreed to create a united front and promised to join forces against the current state of affairs. There will be larger demonstrations than during Covid, ‘authorised or not’, with encampments in city centres, ‘for as long as it takes’. The images of popular revolt from 15 years ago in Madrid and Athens will be repeated, this time in Berlin.
Ricardo Nuno Costa ‒ geopolitical expert, writer, columnist, and editor-in-chief of geopol.pt
Orbán counters FT article telling the EU to ‘solve its Orbán problem’
Remix News | April 1, 2025
The Financial Times’ piece entitled “It’s time for the EU to solve its Orbán problem” has elicited a stern response from Hungarian PM Viktor Orbán.
The piece determines that the EU must support Ukraine’s fight against Russia and provide it with arms to do so. And to do this, it must also somehow get Hungary on board, despite the country repeatedly reiterating its pro-peace stance.
Author Mujtaba Rahman states, “The EU’s ability to do this is directly compromised by Orbán, who has been hugely emboldened by Trump’s return. The Hungarian prime minister keeps in lockstep with Trump and Putin in the hope of winning favours from both.”
Rahman then lists “levers” the bloc can pull to essentially force Hungary’s hand, primarily through the withholding of cash the country desperately needs due to what the author calls Hungary’s “stagnant economy.”
“EU funds are therefore critical if Orbán is to boost investor confidence in the country’s economy. The European Commission has leverage and should use it,” the piece reads. Rahman also suggests simply suspending Hungary’s voting rights.
The article ends by stating, “The EU is now facing a Darwinian moment. It will either adapt or die. To protect Ukraine and its Russian ‘frontline’ states, it must face down Orbán.”
In a response posted on X, Orbán wrote, “The Financial Times is right about one thing: Europe has arrived at a Darwinian moment. They want to change the EU from a peace project to a war project. This is not evolution, this is decay. We must resist, even if they want to punish us.”
How Bernie Sanders and the Democrats Made Elon Musk the Richest Man in the World
By Thomas Eddlem | The Libertarian Institute | April 1, 2025
Just before Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) started their ongoing series of rallies against Elon Musk and President Donald Trump, Sanders stopped by Face the Nation on CBS and hilariously exclaimed in feigned outrage:
“We’re looking at a rapid growth of oligarchy. We’re looking at a rapid growth of authoritarianism. And I fear that we’re looking at a rapid growth of kleptocracy as well. And I’m going to do everything I can to work with my supporters all over this country to stand up and fight back to make sure we have an economy that works for everybody, not just Elon Musk.”
All I could do is laugh, as Bernie Sanders specifically and the other Democrats generally are the ones who made the economy work so well for Elon Musk.
The $465 million Energy Department loan under President Barack Obama that saved Tesla from bankruptcy in 2010 emerged from the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, which was adopted because Bernie Sanders and all the Democrats in the Senate voted for it (except Debbie Stabenow and a half-dozen conservative Republicans). Further, Obama’s American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (which all the Senate Democrats voted for, including Bernie Sanders) included the $7500/EV subsidy that put $1.5 billion in Elon’s wallet. Nearly all Republicans voted against it.
And Musk’s Tesla gains more than $1 billion dollars annually from carbon tax credits passed by Democrats in California in the first decade of the century and which was expanded by President Joe Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (which Sanders and all Democrats passed on a party-line vote in the Senate, and AOC and her Democratic colleagues voted for in the House).
The Washington Post reported on February 26 that Musk received some $38 billion in government contracts, loans, subsidies, and tax credits in the past two decades, most from the federal government funded by Democrats (and some from Democrat-run California), often with strong Republican opposition. And most of these subsidies were realized during President Biden’s term.
Sanders complains constantly about Musk being a billionaire, but you don’t have to be a math major to understand that it’s a just smidge easier to become a billionaire when the government hands you $38 billion. Of course, Sanders and his touring sidekick Ocasio-Cortez work for a government that takes in $5,485 billion from people for almost nothing and somehow still runs a deficit of $1,781 billions every year. So maybe they don’t have the competency to pull that kind of math off.
Sanders and AOC seem to think it was the Republicans who fought for all those green energy subsidies and carbon swap programs. They seem to think the Republicans wanted to keep money flowing to NASA because of the GOP’s fond memories of JFK sending astronauts to the moon, and did not work to end the wasteful agency. But in reality it was Democrats who kept funding flowing to NASA, resulting in Space X scoring huge multi-billion federal space contracts.
If truth in advertising laws were being enforced, Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s nationwide “Rally Against Oligarchy” would instead be labeled “Rally Against the Oligarchy We’re Building.”
I don’t think Elon Musk is a Nazi; I think he’s a highly talented tax dollar harvester. But if he is a Nazi, he is the Democrats’ Nazi. Democrats made him the richest man in the world and saved his businesses from bankruptcy with massive government subsidies championed by the Democrats. They need to own this, because they can’t deny it.
Instead, many of the same Democrats who voted for the politicians who made Musk the richest man in the world now think that a massive pogrom against Musk is a successful strategy to resist Trump’s policies and oppose “fascism.” Uh huh.
Nothing says “I’m opposing fascism” like spray-painting a swastika on a Tesla owned by a Jewish dude. Three quarters of all the swastikas being publicly painted across the world today are being painted by Democrats in America on Teslas, and the other quarter are being painted by the remnants of the neo-Nazi Azov Brigade that has been absorbed into the Ukrainian National Army, a group the Democrats back to the hilt with your tax dollars.
The world’s swastikas being painted these days are being scrawled or funded by the Democratic Party within a rounding error of 100% of the global total. For the first time in many years I went over to the Stormfront.org webpage (a page run by open neo-Nazis) and found them positively bitchy with suppressed jealousy about how Democrats have managed to spread their message so much further than the Mädelschaft of goobers who run that website.
Meanwhile, the captive media fact-checkers acknowledge, “At least 10 Tesla dealerships, charging stations and facilities have been hit by vandals,” along with the vandalization of hundreds of cars of [private] Tesla owners, but simultaneously claim there’s “no evidence of coordinated vandalism.” It’s got to sting when Democrats can pull off a slow-motion, global Krystallnacht against Tesla when the Schutzstaffel-wannabes have been so unsuccessful for so many decades. Meanwhile, Democrats get wild cheers from The Daily Show audience for their ongoing swastika pogrom.
I predict Stormfront’s next published story will be a worried report about the global shortage of swastikas, accompanied by a request for the Democrats to refund a quota of some of the swastikas back so American neo-Nazis can stop swastika rationing.
There’s a reason Elon Musk’s companies faced twenty different investigations by multiple government agencies under the Biden administration and most of those investigations just went away once Trump took office, and it wasn’t because of Elon’s criminal conduct. It was the criminal conduct of Washington and its lawfare. That’s part of the plan, too.
Elon backed the “wrong” party, according to the Democrats. They villainize Musk and the Koch brothers but not Bill Gates, John Kerry, and George Soros. Their vilification of billionaires is notably and risibly selective.
The latter are their bread-and-butter while the former fund their opposition. Washington politics long ago ceased to be an ideological battle, succumbing fully to a team sport.
We’re on a Highlander course for political parties in America: There can be only one.
In at least one sense, we’re already there; Trump and his cabinet are all 2004 Democrats, with a Kennedy in charge of the world’s largest welfare agency and no mandate to cut even a dime of welfare spending. That’s what the “conservative” Republican Party has become. America has a uniparty, and the media wants to make us choose either the Party of Caesar or the Party of Pompey, but both are on the same path to centralization of power in Washington.
Possible new Black Sea agreement likely to fail again
By Lucas Leiroz | Strategic Culture Foundation | March 26, 2025
The recently initiated negotiations between the Putin and Trump administrations to de-escalate the conflict in the Black Sea and reform the regional maritime security architecture represent a pragmatic move by both leaders. While Russian President Vladimir Putin seeks stability to protect Russia’s economic and geopolitical interests, U.S. President Donald Trump, with his well-known commercial interests in the region, sees an opportunity to ease tensions and restore crucial trade flows. However, despite the seemingly conciliatory intentions of both powers, the failure of this diplomatic effort is almost certain due to the Kiev regime’s insistence on perpetuating and escalating the conflict.
The Black Sea is a vital strategic route for Eurasian trade, especially for Russia, whose exports of goods such as grain and manufactured products rely on secure and operational maritime corridors. Putin, aware of the economic and military implications of continued escalation, has once again shown a willingness to negotiate a reduction in hostilities and establish clear rules for navigation and security in the region.
Similarly, Donald Trump, whose administration demonstrated a pragmatic approach toward Russia, has a direct interest in Black Sea stability. Trump sees the de-escalation of violence as an opportunity to strengthen trade ties, reduce logistical costs, and ensure safer commodity flows, directly benefiting the global supply chains.
For Trump, a ceasefire and a renewed security architecture would not only bring stability to the region but could also open space for new profitable trade agreements — even between American/Western and Russian companies. It is also important to emphasize that a Black Sea ceasefire agreement would further enhance Trump’s international image as a diplomatic leader and “peacemaker.”
Despite these converging interests, the biggest obstacle to peace is the Kiev regime, which continues to reject any possibility of de-escalation. Despite peace efforts led by Trump, the Ukrainian government remains uncompromising, fueled by bellicose rhetoric and the unconditional support of irresponsible European states. Rather than seeking peace, Kiev seems determined to intensify the war, driven by hopes that the conflict’s continuation will ensure the survival of the Maidan Junta.
The Ukrainian government sees any agreement as an unacceptable concession to Russia, especially regarding sovereignty over Crimea and the New Regions. Kiev, therefore, sees a possible ceasefire not as an opportunity to negotiate but as a threat to its alleged “strategic and self-defense objectives.” This stance not only undermines diplomatic efforts but also serves to perpetuate a cycle of violence and instability, hampering any effort toward fruitful diplomatic dialogue.
Kiev’s insistence on fueling military escalation is not merely a reactive stance to the negotiations—it is a calculated strategy to maintain Western financial and military support, even if only from European countries. Zelensky and his allies believe that by keeping tensions high, they can secure more weapons, additional sanctions against Russia, and possibly more direct Western military intervention. This approach makes any serious attempt to establish lasting peace impossible, no matter how willing Putin and Trump may be to compromise.
Proof of this scenario lies in the fact that Putin and Trump recently spoke by phone and agreed on a 30-day ceasefire on infrastructure targets. Even after Kiev accepted the terms, the regime violated the agreement just hours later—making it practically clear that it does not recognize the legitimacy of any Russian peace guarantee.
Since 2014, Kiev has repeatedly sabotaged all international agreements in which it has participated. The regime has been unable to properly implement the demands of the Minsk Agreements and caved under British pressure to continue the war in the summer of 2022—in addition to sabotaging all Russian-American bilateral negotiations.
Ultimately, the possible failure of the negotiations will be the inevitable consequence of Ukraine’s stance. As long as Kiev insists on terror as a strategy to achieve its goals, any diplomatic effort between Russia and the United States will be doomed from the start. Kiev’s rhetoric, driven by a desire for confrontation and Western political support, is incompatible with peace.
Black Sea stability is vital not only for Russia but for the security and economic prosperity of the entire region. However, as long as Kiev insists on perpetuating the conflict, Putin’s and Trump’s aspirations for lasting peace will remain nothing more than an “illusion”—a hope frustrated by Ukrainian belligerence and insistence on turning the Black Sea into yet another geopolitical battleground.
EU rejects US-mediated Black Sea ceasefire deal
RT | March 27, 2025
The EU will not fulfill Russia’s demand to lift sanctions on the country’s main agricultural bank as part of the Black Sea ceasefire initiative discussed between Moscow and Washington, European Commission Foreign Affairs spokeswoman Anitta Hipper has said.
During the talks between Russian and US experts in Riyadh on Monday, the sides agreed to move towards reviving the Black Sea Grain Initiative, which, according to the Kremlin, should include the removal of Western restrictions against Russian Agricultural Bank and other financial institutions involved in the international sale of food and fertilizers. The maritime ceasefire is seen by Moscow and Washington as a step towards settling the Ukraine conflict.
In her interview with the Financial Times on Wednesday, Hipper insisted that “the end of the Russian unprovoked and unjustified aggression in Ukraine and unconditional withdrawal of all Russian military forces from the entire territory of Ukraine would be one of the main preconditions to amend or lift sanctions.”
“The EU’s main focus remains to maximize pressure on Russia, using all tools available, including sanctions, to diminish Russia’s ability to wage its war against Ukraine,” she insisted.
US President Donald Trump confirmed on Tuesday that his administration is considering lifting some curbs against Moscow, saying that “there are about five or six conditions. We are looking at all of them.”
Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky claimed later that Kiev did not agree to the maritime truce due to it representing “a weakening of positions and a weakening of sanctions” against Russia.
The Black Sea Grain Initiative, originally brokered in July 2022 by the UN and Türkiye, envisioned the safe passage of Ukrainian agricultural products in exchange for the West lifting its restrictions on Russian grain and fertilizer exports. Moscow withdrew from the deal a year later, citing the West’s failure to fold up its obligations.
Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said on Wednesday that the maritime truce could take effect only once certain conditions set out by Russia are met. “Of course, this time justice must prevail, and we will continue our work with the Americans [on the Black Sea Initiative],” Peskov stressed.
The High Price of War with Iran: $10 Gas and the Collapse of the US Economy
By Dennis J. Kucinich | March 25, 2025
Israel is currently in turmoil, marked by widespread protests demanding Netanyahu’s resignation. Critics accuse him of prolonging war for political gain, while his dismissal of top security officials and ongoing attacks on the judiciary have further intensified the unrest.
Meanwhile, Washington DC’s drumbeat for war never stops. It’s always at the expense of a decent and secure standard of living for people in this country and abroad.
The Trump Administration, after the series of heady airstrikes against Yemen, is at this moment being beseeched by Netanyahu and his associates to prepare for a seemingly consequence-free nuclear strike against Iran, completing the trifecta of Netanyahu’s long-standing dream.
I have consistently warned against the consequences of an attack on Iran, delivering 155 speeches to the House, 63 presentations alone in the 109th Congress, between 2005 and 2007, when the Bush Administration deliberated using nuclear “bunker-busters” as a means of bringing Iran to heel.
I understood the politics then and I understand them today. I warned hundreds of times that it was not in America’s interests to go to war against Netanyahu’s hit list: Iraq, Iran, Libya…
IRAQ
In 2002, the Bush Administration caused Americans grieving over 9/11 to believe Iraq had a direct role in the attacks which took over 3,000 lives. Except, Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.
Bush claimed Iraq was pursuing nuclear weapons and other “Weapons of Mass Destruction” (WMDs) and was an imminent threat to the U.S. Iraq did not have WMD’s. Iraq was not a threat to the U.S. Iraq had no ability to attack America. Didn’t matter.
The war against Iraq began 22 years ago and lasted eight years. One million innocent Iraqi men, women and children perished because of lies. They were killed in relentless bombings and aggressive ground operations.
At least 4,443 U.S. servicemen and women were killed, and an estimated 32,000 wounded during “Operation Iraqi Freedom,” because of lies.
The lies cost U.S. taxpayers at least $3 trillion. Three trillion hard-earned tax dollars of the American people were spent to pay for the destruction of the people of Iraq while Americans struggled to pay bills for housing, health care, and education and the nation went further into debt.
Remember this diabolical playbook: Create a pretext. Lie to the American people about a threat. Hype the threat. Create irrational fear. Tell them military action is needed to eliminate the threat, and their fears. Bombs away.
On September 12, 2002, as a Member of Congress, I grilled then-former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu during a congressional hearing entitled, “An Israeli Perspective on Conflict with Iraq” (video and transcript link below). Despite evidence to the contrary, he testified that Iraq and its leader, Saddam Hussein, were a direct threat to America due to an alleged pursuit of WMDs including a nuclear weapon. He urged the U.S. to take military action against Iraq.
I inquired of him who else he would have the United States attack.
“Iran and Libya,” he said.
I spoke to Mr. Netanyahu outside the hearing room and asked him that if he was so convinced those countries were a threat, why didn’t Israel commence the attacks?
“Oh no,” he responded. “We need you to do it.”
On October 10, 2002, the House of Representatives, by a vote of 296-133, authorized the use of military force against Iraq. I led the opposition. The war bill passed the Senate the next day, 77-23, and was signed into law by President Bush on October 16, 2002.
On March 20, 2003, the President describing Iraq as part of an “Axis of Evil,” commenced a “Shock and Awe” onslaught by American warships, aircraft and submarines, launching cruise missiles and “precision guided bombs” roundly murdering people in Baghdad. Iraq was destroyed. Saddam was deposed, captured and hung.
Libya
On March 19, 2011, despite lacking formal congressional authorization, President Barack Obama authorized an attack on Libya to depose Muammar Gaddafi. I led the opposition. Hillary Clinton’s State Department, the EU, NATO, the UK and France to name but a few, lobbied Congress hard to accelerate actions against Libya.
That country’s leaders were dumbfounded as to why, considering that they had done everything America had asked, such as open markets to foreign investment. I held up the bombing for some time by building a bi-partisan coalition of Members of Congress to vote no.
Alas, Obama and the Clinton State Department prevailed. Republican Speaker of the House John Boehner negotiated a redraft of the authorization bill and the Republicans fell in line.
The U.S., with NATO allies, joined forces, wreaking destruction and havoc upon Libya. Gaddafi was deposed, captured and killed, at an estimated cost of over a billion dollars. Obama admitted years later that this was the worst decision of his Presidency.
Iran
On July 25, 2024, Prime Minister Netanyahu, (while under a criminal investigation by the Israeli judiciary), addressed the U.S. Congress concerning Iran, which he characterized as not only a deadly enemy of Israel, but also of the United States.
“Iran’s axis of terror confronts America, Israel and our Arab friends,” Netanyahu declared.
The interests of Israel and America were and are inseparable, he proclaimed – to 58 standing ovations. One could take that heroic reception as rubberstamping an authorization for war. As Netanyahu had told me years ago, “…we need you [the U.S.] to do it.”
Today, the Houthis of Yemen continue their attacks on Israeli shipping interests in the Red Sea, in protest to the Netanyahu government’s genocidal attack on Gaza.
President Trump, ever sensitive to and allegiant to Israel, views the Houthis as proxies of Iran. The President directed America’s air forces to rain down fire and brimstone upon Yemen, a nation of teenagers. The median age in Yemen is 18.4 years. The country spends about 1/1000 of the U.S. military budget for its own defense.
Trump threatened the Iranian government: “Every shot fired by the Houthis will be looked upon from this point forward, as being a shot fired from the weapons and leadership of IRAN (his emphasis). And IRAN will be held responsible, and suffer the consequences, and those consequences will be dire.”
The Administration followed up with Executive Order (E.O.) 13902, which, according to the U.S. Treasury Department was part of a “campaign of maximum pressure” which “targets Iran’s petroleum and petrochemical sectors and marks the fourth round of sanctions targeting Iranian oil sales…”
The first Trump Administration withdrew from a Joint Plan of Action agreement (JCPOA) which provided Iran relief from sanctions in exchange for accepting limitations which would preclude nuclear weaponization.
President Trump ordered the assassination by drone strike of Iranian General Qasem Soleimani, considered the second most powerful person in Iran, at the Baghdad airport, underscoring his determination to strike at Iran.
Iran has consistently asserted its nuclear research is for peaceful purposes. There has been a long-standing formal prohibition in Islamic law, a fatwa, issued by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the Supreme Leader of Iran, against the development or use of nuclear weapons.
Recently, President Trump said he would love a deal to prevent Iran from having a nuclear weapon, “I would love to make a deal with them without bombing them.”
At the same time, U.S. B-52 bombers, capable of delivering nuclear bunker-busting bombs, were engaged in joint exercises with the Israeli Air Force, in preparation for a potential strike at Iran’s underground nuclear sites.
These joint maneuvers were reminiscent of the cooperation and interoperability exercises that took place between the UK and French forces in preparation for a real-world offensive against Libya in 2011.
Ayatollah Khamenei replied “…threats will get them (the Americans) nowhere,” and refused talks under such conditions as “deceptive.” Iranian Brigadier General Kiumars Heidari added, for emphasis, “Iran is ready to crush its enemies if it makes mistakes.”
The dialectic of conflict is escalating.
It was not in America’s interest then, nor is it now, to go to war with Iran, a nation of 90 million people, a technologically advanced society, with nearly a million-person army.
President Trump should not be misled. War with Iran would be the end of his presidency. Here is why:
Iran supplies 3% of the world’s oil. If the U.S. goes to war with Iran, crude oil prices per barrel (currently ranging from $68.86 (West Texas Intermediate) – $72.28 (Brent Crude), could rise to $200 per barrel.
The Strait of Hormuz, a major conduit for the transport of oil would be disrupted. Iran has the capability retaliate by targeting Gulf oil infrastructure, including Saudi Arabia. Market panic would ensue.
The price of a gallon of gas, currently averaging $3.13, would double, approach $7 a gallon, and in some cases, reach $10 a gallon, in states with higher fuel taxes. (This is based on historical data which calculates that every $1 increase in crude oil per barrel translates to about a 2 to 3 cent increase per gallon at the pump).
Attempts to manage supply disruptions and market distortions through the release of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve would do little to offset panic buying and stockpiling by consumers. Nor would an increase in U.S. domestic drilling be sufficient to offset lost Middle East oil supplies, due to supply shortage, infrastructure constraints and limitations on refining capacity.
Major disruptions, including high inflation, recession risks, and market instability would hit the US economy. Consumer retail spending would sink while prices rose for food and other goods, as energy costs for manufacturing, agriculture and transportation spiraled out of control.
Slower economic growth would push the U.S. into a recession, with the Fed forced to try to maintain control over inflation by hiking interest rates well beyond the current 4.25% – 4.50 % range.
Auto sales would take a hit. Corporate profits in transportation, airlines, trucking would nosedive. The Dow Jones and S& P 500 would be in shock, with major selloffs. America would arrive at stagflation, high inflation rates and negative growth as it did during the 1973 Oil Embargo.
The multiple economic impacts of the 2008 subprime meltdown and subsequent financial crash which cost the US economy $16 to $20 trillion dollars would become the morbid benchmark for the descent of the American economy.
Now contemplate this concatenation: War with Iran, reciprocal high tariffs, massive cuts in the federal workforce and domestic federal spending and you have an economy in a tailspin, with high inflation, rising unemployment, falling consumer spending, leading to an economic contraction requiring a system of government intervention which is currently being dismantled. Then there is the permanent restructuring of the tax code to accelerate wealth upwards. These conditions create political combustibility.
In the end, Iran will never crush Donald Trump. The U.S. will crush itself trying to wipe out Iran.
The economic effects of war with Iran could spell the end, not only of the viability of the Trump Presidency, but of the Republican House and Senate, a political turnaround the likes of which has not been seen in American politics since the 1932 sweep led by Franklin Delano Roosevelt and the New Deal.
In 1928 Republican Herbert Hoover took 58.2% of the popular vote and defeated Democrat Al Smith 444-87 in the Electoral College. Amidst a complete rejection of Republican economic policies and the Depression, Roosevelt took 57.4% of the popular vote in 1932 and defeated Hoover in the Electoral College 472-59.
The 270-164 advantage which House Republicans held in 1928 evaporated in 1932 as Democrats crushed Republicans with a 313-117 majority.
There has not been another turnaround like this in American political history and it was driven by the economic forces which overwhelmed a Republican Administration, followed by a program of promised reform which the new Administration delivered.
While the Administration is at the fullness of its expression of unbridled power, it faces a fateful decision regarding Iran which will determine whether the mandate received by Trump in 2024 evaporates as quickly as did Hoover’s in 1932.
Israel itself is in turmoil, with mass protests calling for Netanyahu’s resignation, charges he is prolonging the war for his political benefit, his firing of top security officials and his attacks on the judiciary.
Netanyahu is on shaky ground, pummeled by his fellow countrymen and women who worry, far from ensuring the future of Israel, his deadly policies threaten it.
One could imagine Trump, considering his own and America’s interests, could call Netanyahu and say, “Bibi, we are friends ‘til the end. This is the end.”
Links: 2002 Congressional Hearing “Conflict in Iraq: An Israeli Perspective” video and transcript
Russia’s GDP exceeds $2.3tn in 2024, almost doubling in 4 years
Al Mayadeen | March 26, 2025
Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin stated that Russia’s GDP reached 200 trillion rubles ($2.3 trillion) in 2024, nearly doubling over the past four years.
Addressing the State Duma, he said, “GDP breached the 200 trillion rubles mark in nominal terms in 2024 for the first time, having almost doubled since 2020.”
“Domestic demand, both investment and consumer, fueled growth,” the premier said, adding that “fixed investment gained almost 7.5% in a year.”
On a related note, Russia’s crude oil exports have surged to their highest level in five months, even as US-led negotiations continue to broker a ceasefire in Ukraine.
According to recent data revealed on March 25, Russian crude oil flows from all ports rose to 3.45 million barrels per day in the four weeks ending March 23, marking the highest level since October 20. This increase came despite a weekly decline in shipments, primarily due to lower flows from the Baltic and Black seas.
Russian GDP grows by 5%
Last year, Mishustin announced on July 12 that the GDP of Russia has grown 5% in the first five months of the year – higher than expected.
During a meeting on economic issues, he said, “Today, we will discuss the current situation in the economy. The dynamics remains high – in May growth accelerated slightly compared to April to 4.5%.”
He added, “If we take the statistics for five months, the gross domestic product increased by 5% compared to the same period last year. This is significantly higher than forecasts, despite all attempts from outside to stop us.”
Mishustin revealed his belief that the data in the real sector of the economy are also positive as he stated that from January to May, the manufacturing sector grew by nearly 9%, citing machine building as one of the key factors in this area, “which showed double-digit growth rates.”
Russia and US agree to key maritime initiative – Kremlin
RT | March 25, 2025
Russia and the US have committed to advancing the Black Sea Initiative as a step towards settling the Ukraine conflict, according to a statement released by the Kremlin on Tuesday.
The agreement follows the 12-hour talks focused on the Ukraine conflict held on Monday in Saudi Arabia by expert groups from the two countries.
The sides discussed steps to ensure safe navigation in the Black Sea, including a pledge to avoid the use of force and prevent commercial vessels from being used for military purposes, while agreeing on control measures such as ship inspections.
The US has vowed to “help restore access for Russian agricultural and fertilizer exports to the world market, reduce the cost of insurance for maritime transportation, and enhance access to ports and payment systems for such transactions,” according to the Kremlin statement.
The agreement envisions lifting restrictions on Russian Agricultural Bank and other financial institutions involved in international trade of food and fertilizers, including reconnecting them to the SWIFT payment system. It also includes removing sanctions on Russian-flagged vessels, port services, and the supply of agricultural machinery and related goods to Russia.
According to the statement, Moscow and Washington have also agreed to develop measures to enforce the 30-day ban on strikes against energy infrastructure in Russia and Ukraine that was agreed last week. There would be an option to extend the arrangement or abandon it if either side fails to comply.
The two sides also welcomed the involvement of third countries in supporting agreements on energy and maritime matters.
The US and Russia “will continue efforts to achieve a lasting and sustainable peace,” the statement concludes.
Originally brokered in July 2022 by the UN and Türkiye, the Black Sea Grain Initiative aimed to ensure the safe passage of Ukrainian agricultural exports in return for the easing of Western restrictions on Russia’s grain and fertilizer trade. Moscow did not renew the deal in 2023, citing the West’s failure to uphold its commitments.
New York Takes A Stab At A Green New Deal Demonstration Project: The Case Of Ithaca
By Francis Menton | Manhattan Contrarian | March 20, 2025
Many political jurisdictions claim to be on a path to eliminating emissions of carbon dioxide from their energy systems. Notable examples include California and New York in the U.S., and the UK and Germany in Europe. The Biden administration during its term in office even claimed to have set the entire U.S. onto a path toward what they called “net zero.” But so far none of these places has gotten anywhere near the goal. Indeed, as of today, many hundreds of billions of dollars into the effort, not one of them has even issued a detailed engineering plan of how this is supposed to be accomplished.
For reasons expressed in some dozens of posts on this blog, with the exception of a vast expansion of nuclear energy, I don’t believe that this “net zero” thing can actually be done, at least without entirely impoverishing the people. However, I’m completely willing to be proved wrong. For many years, I have been calling for a Demonstration Project to prove whether or not an economically-developed community is capable of achieving zero carbon emissions, or anything close to that (example here from 2022). Surely, if the entire U.S. can be expected to accomplish “net zero” in response to a government command, then it should be simple to build a working “net zero” Demonstration Project for a small town of, say, a few tens of thousands of people.
I’ve even proposed the perfect place as my candidate to be the guinea pig for the “net zero” demonstration: Ithaca, New York. After all, Ithaca is the most exquisitely climate virtuous place in what is already a deep blue state. It is home to two thoroughly left-wing academic institutions (Cornell University and Ithaca College), with their thousands of radical left-wing climate activist faculty and students. These people should leap at the chance to show the rest of the world how this “net zero” thing can be done. Also, the population (approximately 50,000) is in about the right range for a net zero demonstration project. (Note that the 50,000 is the combined population of the City of Ithaca and Town of Ithaca. Yes, for reasons known only to the geniuses of New York State local governance, Ithaca consists of two independent adjoining municipalities, a City and a Town, sharing the same name.). If “net zero” doesn’t work in a small place like this, the loss of investment could be large, but not catastrophic.
And in fact, when it comes to talking the talk, Ithaca would appear to be at the forefront of the green energy transition. Back in June 2019, the Ithaca City Common Council unanimously adopted what they called the “Ithaca Green New Deal.” A few months later, in March 2020, the Ithaca Town Council, also unanimously, adopted their own “Green New Deal Resolution.” Although there are differences, the Town’s Resolution incorporated much of the language of the City’s Resolution word-for-word. Not to be caught standing still, the next year, 2021, the City of Ithaca went a step further and announced that it would electrify all of its 6000 buildings. They didn’t actually use the words “demonstration project,” but clearly the key elements were now in place. Should we check in on how it’s going?
The short answer: It’s a complete joke.
First, let’s take note of some of the official goals. From the City of Ithaca Green New Deal resolution:
RESOLVED, That the City of Ithaca adopts a goal to meet the electricity needs of City government operations with 100% renewable electricity by 2025. . . . RESOLVED, That the City of Ithaca hereby adopts a goal of achieving a carbon neutral city by 2030. . . . RESOLVED, That the City of Ithaca endorses the following actions to achieve these goals: Create a climate action plan (CAP) in 2020 to provide details on how to achieve the Ithaca Green New Deal, and update the CAP regularly. . . .
And then there’s this, not found (at least today) on the City of Ithaca’s website, but reported on January 29, 2025 at the website of WSKG, the Ithaca PBS affiliate:
In 2021, the small city of Ithaca announced it would electrify all of its 6,000 buildings.
And how exactly was Ithaca going to electrify 6000 buildings within a few short years?
[Ithaca planned to achieve building electrification] with the help of one key partner: a technology company called BlocPower, whose then-CEO Donnel Baird said the company would make the mass electrification process fast and affordable. “There’s a lot of expensive engineering and financial and workforce development costs,” Baird told Ithaca’s common council in 2021, after it approved the mass electrification plan. “Our job is to remove all of that friction.”
OK, those were the goals. Now for the progress toward achieving them. If you go to the website of the City of Ithaca today, everything seems great:
Ithaca is leading the world. On June 5th, 2019, the City of Ithaca Common Council unanimously adopted the Ithaca Green New Deal resolution, a government-led commitment to community-wide carbon neutrality by 2030 that focuses on addressing historical inequities, economic inequality, and social justice. Two years after the resolution was signed, Ithaca established itself as a world-leader in climate mitigation planning and continues to pave the path forward as a blueprint for other cities across the U.S. and the globe.
But how about some actual facts on the ground. Let’s start with that building electrification thing. From that same January 25 WSKG piece:
[I]n recent months, BlocPower has quietly deserted its electrification and workforce training programs in Ithaca and several other cities, according to municipal leaders and organizations that worked with BlocPower. . . . In Ithaca, BlocPower ended its collaboration with the city after completing the electrification of only 10 buildings, according to Ithaca’s current sustainability director, Rebecca Evans. Last November, the company furloughed its Ithaca staff members and ended all partnerships in the city, Evans said.
6000 buildings, 10, whatever. Here is a picture from WSKG of “sustainability director” Rebecca Evans:
So, Ms. Evans, how about the big Climate Action Plan by which Ithaca will instruct the ignorant world how to get to carbon neutrality? Here’s another piece from WSKG, this one from several months ago (October 2024) reporting on recent revisions to the Plan. Excerpt:
The [Green New Deal] resolution . . . charged city staff with creating a formal climate action plan that would outline how the city would achieve those goals. Ithaca’s sustainability director, Rebecca Evans, wrote in a post on LinkedIn last month that she recently decided to scrap the version of that plan she had been working on. The decision, she said in an interview with WSKG, does not change the goals of the Green New Deal, but instead reframes the city’s approach of how it will achieve its commitments. Evans said that rather than prioritizing reducing emissions, the new plan will prioritize helping residents adapt to living in a warming world, while also working towards the city’s emissions-reduction goals. That could include providing residents with better access to social services, like housing and job training, and improving the city’s emergency response and electricity reliability.
Got it — They’ve given up on reducing emissions. And how about the City’s promise to get 100% of its own electricity from renewable sources by 2025? Are they really doing that right now? I can’t find a recent report, but there’s this from back in December 2011:
Beginning in January [2012], the City of Ithaca will purchase 100% of its electricity consumption from renewable sources. Under a new agreement with Integrys Energy Services of New York, Inc., Ithaca will purchase Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs) certified by Green-e Energy for all of its electricity.
Aha! It’s the magic of “Renewable Energy Certificates.” Apparently, those make it possible to get your electricity from wind turbines and solar panels on completely calm nights. If you are willing to believe it. Al Gore would be proud.
In short, everything about Ithaca’s Green New Deal is either a scam, or has been quietly abandoned, or both.
Here in New York City we have our own building electrification mandate called “Local Law 97” that is said to require some 50,000 buildings to convert to electric heat and cooking by 2030. Does anybody really think we can make any more progress toward such a goal than Ithaca?
Buried fortune: US finds $8.4 billion in rare earths sitting in coal ash landfills
By Aamir Khollam | News Break | March 18, 2025
For years, the United States has depended on imports of rare earth elements, the critical materials found in everything from smartphones to renewable energy technologies.
But in a surprising twist, researchers from The University of Texas at Austin have discovered that a massive domestic supply has been sitting right under our noses all along.
Trapped within the country’s coal ash deposits lies a staggering $8.4 billion worth of these essential elements, a finding that could significantly reduce dependence on imports and reshape America’s approach to sourcing critical minerals.
From waste to wealth
Coal ash, the powdery byproduct left after burning coal for fuel, has long been considered an industrial waste product.
However, scientists have now identified coal ash as an abundant and accessible source of rare earth elements.
These elements are crucial in manufacturing batteries, solar panels, and high-performance magnets.
“This really exemplifies the ‘trash to treasure’ mantra,” said Bridget Scanlon, co-lead author of the study and a research professor at UT Austin’s Bureau of Economic Geology.
“We’re basically trying to close the cycle and use waste and recover resources in the waste, while at the same time reducing environmental impacts.”
Striking gold with global implications
The study estimates that U.S. coal ash contains 11 million tons of rare earth elements.
That’s nearly eight times the country’s known domestic reserves.
This is the first national assessment of coal ash as a resource, presenting a new way to strengthen America’s supply of critical minerals.
Unlike traditional mining, coal ash extraction has a key advantage.
The burning process has already separated the minerals from their original ore.
This reduces the need for energy-intensive refining steps.
“There’s huge volumes of this stuff all over the country,” said Davin Bagdonas, a research scientist at the University of Wyoming. “And the upfront process of extracting the (mineral host) is already taken care of for us.”
Regional variations
The study reveals that not all coal ash is the same.
Different regions contain varying concentrations of rare earth elements, affecting how easily they can be extracted.
Coal ash from the Appalachian Basin has the highest concentration, averaging 431 milligrams per kilogram.
However, only 30% is easily recoverable. Coal from the Powder River Basin has a lower concentration (264 mg/kg) but a much higher extractability rate of 70%. This makes it a more viable option for large-scale recovery.
“These variations matter because they determine which deposits are most economically viable,” Scanlon explained.
“This kind of broad analysis has never been done. It provides a foundation for further research.”
Turning potential into reality
While the discovery is promising, challenges remain in making it a practical solution.
Companies like Element USA are developing the technology and workforce needed to extract rare earth elements from coal ash and mining byproducts.
“The idea of getting rare earth elements out of tailings (mining byproducts) just makes sense,” said Chris Young, chief strategy officer at Element USA .
“The challenge is turning that common-sense idea into an economic solution.”
The U.S. has a major opportunity with growing investment in domestic rare earth recovery.
By tapping into this overlooked resource, the country could reduce reliance on foreign sources and turn waste into a strategic national asset.
The study is published in the International Journal of Coal Science & Technology.
Five Factors Behind the Decline of US Military Shipbuilding
By Ilya Tsukanov – Sputnik – 23.03.2025
US business media have cited the USS Constellation frigate as a prime example of problems plaguing the industry, with the warship, slated for delivery in 2026, just 10% complete and already over budget. Here’s why turning the situation around won’t be easy.
Post-Cold War Decline
American military shipbuilding peaked in the 1980s, with 150 major warships displacing over 1.2M tons added to the fleet during the decade, including three Nimitz-class carriers, Los Angeles-class attack subs, Ohio-class SSBNs and Ticonderoga, Arleigh Burke, Spruance and Perry-class destroyers, cruisers and frigates.
After the Cold War ended, the US cut its Navy in half, closed shipyards, and lost skilled workers against the background of the country’s broader deindustrialization and transition to a service economy.
Monopolization
In the 90s, large shipyards including Avondale, Fore River, Todd Pacific, Philadelphia, Charleston, and Mare Island were closed, downsized or converted for civilian use, creating monopolists among remaining producers like Huntington Ingalls Industries (HII) and General Dynamics, and jacking up contract costs.
For example, while $12.1B was allocated to shipbuilding in the 1984 Pentagon budget ($36B in 2024 dollars), last year’s budget was $32.8B, with far less to show for it.
Aging Infrastructure
Modern US shipyards are often straddled with aging infrastructure, impacting construction of new vessels, and the introduction of new technologies.
Skilled Labor Shortages
The loss of skilled tradesmen has taken a particularly heavy toll, with HII’s Newport News yard, building the Gerald Ford-class carriers, constantly facing a lack of welders, electricians, pipe and shipfitters.
A House Armed Services Committee hearing this month found that tough working conditions, and wages often just a couple dollars more than those at fast-food joints, are making it difficult for the industry to retain workers. Naval engineers are also underpaid and underappreciated.
Design Flaws, Red Tape
Design issues have turned some vessels, like the Zumwalt destroyer, Ford-class carriers and Littoral Combat Ships (LCSs) into costly nightmares, shrinking acquisition of Zumwalts from 32 to 3, and LCS warships being already being phased out after a decade or less of service.
The result? Major cost overruns, program delays and bureaucracy slowing acquisition to a crawl, even as manufacturers collect bigger and bigger paydays.
Featured Video
Elijah Magnier: Yemen’s strikes are shattering Saudi Arabia’s long-term strategy
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
British weapons and personnel doing much of the killing in Yemen
Press TV – June 18, 2019
A detailed report published by the Guardian newspaper has shown how Britain is massively contributing to Saudi Arabia’s devastating war on Yemen as it suggests that London is not only supplying the bombs that fall on Yemenis, but it provides the personnel and expertise that keep the war going.
The comprehensive report by Arron Merat published on Tuesday showed that Britain was doing much of the killing in Yemen as the country continues to provide Saudi Arabia with everything it needs to turn its southern impoverished neighbor into a graveyard.
“Every day Yemen is hit by British bombs – dropped by British planes that are flown by British-trained pilots and maintained and prepared inside Saudi Arabia by thousands of British contractors,” said Merat in the report. … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- Netizens condemn Japanese drama for projecting Japan’s wartime atrocities onto Chinese characters
- Racist Seinfeld Dances for Joy as Bibi Unveils His New Map
- A West Bank War for Netanyahu’s Election Campaign, Could It Backfire?
- Yemen denounces European Parliament’s ‘hypocritical’ push to blacklist Ansarullah
- Qalibaf: UAE’s UN bid aims to ‘clear the runway’ for ‘Greater Israel’, whitewash genocide
- Pakistan reopens Iran border after boosting security: Report
- Why are so many Brazilians voting for Flávio Bolsonaro?
- Democrats Put Anti-Russia Agenda Ahead of American Workers
- Elijah Magnier: Yemen’s Strikes Are Shattering Saudi Arabia’s Long-Term Strategy
- Pentagon designates Chinese cultural centers national security threat
- If Americans Knew
- An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
- No Tricks Zone
- Sudden Stratospheric Warming, Powerful El Niño Combination May Lead To Extreme Europe Cold, Energy Crisis!
- Two New Studies Find Thwaites Glacier Melt Cannot Be Driven By Human Activity Or A Warming Ocean
- E-Cars Reduce CO2 Emissions By Only 41% Compared To Internal Combustion Engine Vehicles
- Predictions Made By Renowned Climate Professor Over Past Decades Have Been Proven To Be Poor
- New Study Suggests Large Regions Of The Pacific Ocean Have Been Cooling For The Last 80 Years
- Germany’s Green Energy Debacle: High Energy Costs Force Kahla Porzellan to Close After 182 Years!
- New Study: 50 Years Of The Most Aggressive ‘Net Zero’ Policies Can Only Affect The Global Climate By 0.03°C
- US September “Heat” Was No Record…Many Records Set Decades Ago
- Latest European Green Energy Debacle; Portugal’s Largest Flagship Solar Park Insolvent!
- Green Energy Debacle: German Expert Professor Fritz Vahrenholt Warns Of Severe Economic And Social Consequences
