China issues rules on countermeasures against foreign states’ unlawful extraterritorial jurisdiction
Xinhua – April 13, 2026
Chinese Premier Li Qiang has signed a decree of the State Council to publish a new set of rules on countering foreign states’ unlawful extraterritorial jurisdiction measures.
The regulations, consisting of 20 articles, take effect upon publication.
According to the rules, such extraterritorial jurisdiction measures refer to actions taken by a foreign country that violate international law and the basic norms governing international relations and that harm China’s sovereignty, security and development interests, or the legitimate rights and interests of Chinese citizens and organizations.
The rules also stipulate that the Chinese government has the authority to take countermeasures in response to such actions.
They also state that the Chinese government has the authority to exercise extraterritorial jurisdiction over relevant conduct if a sufficient nexus exists.
The regulations establish a system of a malicious entity list targeting foreign organizations and individuals that promote or participate in the implementation of a foreign state’s unlawful extraterritorial jurisdiction measures.
The regulations also state that no organization or individual shall enforce or assist in enforcing such unlawful jurisdiction measures.
The regulations state that Chinese citizens and organizations affected by unlawful extraterritorial jurisdiction measures may file lawsuits against those enforcing them, and that government authorities will provide guidance and support for such legal actions.
Chinese authorities have repeatedly expressed firm opposition to the abuse of unilateral sanctions and long-arm jurisdiction.
China’s law on countering foreign sanctions was adopted in 2021. Key meetings of the Communist Party of China in recent years also pledged to strengthen mechanisms for countering foreign sanctions, interference, and long-arm jurisdiction.
Tomorrow’s naval blockade showdown
How will China react?
Ashes of Pompeii | April 12, 2026
Apparently tomorrow morning, April 13, at 10 a.m. ET the blockade of Iran’s ports by the US will begin. Make no mistake, this is primarily pointed at Iran’s trade with China. The Trump team seem to still think they can kill two birds with one stone – bring down the Islamic Republic and also economically weaken China. In this article I will focus on China, in particular, one aspect of the US/China relationship that gets little attention but which can be a “nuclear bomb” for China. Much discussion in the US about the boom in data center construction, but far less discussion of the total reliance on Chiina for these builds.
It has been estimated by multiple sources that literally all of the US growth in the past year has been due to the AI boom, specifically, due to AI data center builds. Without this ,US growth would be flat, potentially even negative. Even without the Iran war and rising energy costs, data center construction in the U.S. is currently facing significant headwinds, resulting in delays and escalating costs. The primary driver is the strained supply chain, impacting the availability of critical components like switchgear, generators, and specialized cooling equipment. Lead times for these items have stretched considerably, pushing project timelines back by months, if not quarters.

There are other factors for the slow down, especially chip and labor shortages, regulatory hurdles, and the increasing costs of infrastructure. This isn’t the place to delve into all of the factors, but the point is this vital sector for the US economy is in an extremely fragile state. One small push and it can come tumbling down.
And it turns out that whether this sector continues to keep the US out of recession or not is entirely in China’s hands. Forget chips as the vital factor, especially as other US allies control most of the chip production. Just as real a bottleneck is in Chinese electrical components. There is currently a backlog of several years for many of these. Sure, potentially in the long run, there can be many sources for these components. But not tomorrow. Or the day after.
With just the flick of a switch, China stop exporting these components and the AI boom dies almost instantly. And with it, any hopes for real growth in the US economy over the coming months or years.
I obviously don’t know how China will react, or what measures it will enact, if the US navy does go through with its blockade tomorrow. What I outline here is just one of many potential levers the Chinese can pull (rare earths, pharma base ingredients, T-Bills, …)
But don’t expect the US blockade to impact China too severely any time soon.
Chinese jet fuel and the myth of energy independence
Inside China Business | April 8, 2026
Except for in Russia and (ironically) Iran, the war in the Persian Gulf has blown up energy markets everywhere. Worldwide, no country is self-sufficient in all its energy needs, and disruptions in a supply chains anywhere result in major problems everywhere. China is the largest refiner of jet fuel in Asia-Pacific, and has enormous reserves of crude stashed away, which can last months. But immediately after the war on Iran began, China locked down its exports of jet fuel. The effect on prices across Asia was felt immediately, with costs more than doubling in just six weeks. In the United States, fuel prices also soared, and also by over 100%.
Resources and links:
$140, and going higher: That’s the real price of oil, right now. Oil traders will be wiped out.
• $140, and going higher: That’s the real p…
Singapore’s major oil source is blocked and experts warn Australians will pay https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-04-0…
Australia and Japan face jet fuel supply crunch as China cuts exports https://www.scmp.com/economy/china-ec…
Daily Jet Fuel Spot Prices https://www.airlines.org/dataset/argu…
America’s energy independence https://no01.substack.com/p/americas-…
US crude oil exports decreased by 3% in 2025 despite higher production (+3%) https://www.enerdata.net/publications…
Petroleum & Other Liquids, Imports by Country of Origin https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move…
China set to extend fuel export ban with small exemptions, sources say https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pa…
South Korea to enforce 5-day vehicle rotation system as Mideast conflict hits energy supplies https://www.aa.com.tr/en/asia-pacific…
Russia, China block Bahrain-sponsored UN resolution on Strait of Hormuz
Press TV – April 7, 2026
Russia and China vetoed a UN Security Council resolution on Tuesday that called for states to coordinate efforts to protect commercial shipping in the Strait of Hormuz.
The draft resolution, prepared by Bahrain and supported by the United States, received 11 votes in favor, two against and two abstentions – Pakistan and Colombia.
The text was already diluted from the initial goal of obtaining clearance to “unblock” the strait by force.
The latest draft “strongly encourages states… to coordinate efforts, defensive in nature, commensurate to the circumstances, to contribute to ensuring the safety and security of navigation, including through the escort of merchant and commercial vessels.”
It also “demands” that Iran “immediately cease all attacks against merchant and commercial vessels and any attempt to impede transit passage or freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz.”
The critical waterway has been nearly blocked since the United States and Israel launched their war of aggression on February 28, sending ripple effects throughout the global economy.
Iran says it has not blocked the strait but imposed restrictions due to the security conditions created in the wake of the war on the country.
Tehran says all vessels must coordinate with it before trying to pass the waterway, which lies within its territorial waters.
It says it will not allow ships affiliated with the aggressors and their supporters to pass through the strait.
The Iranian Parliament has recently been discussing legislation to create a new legal regime for the strait to charge fees for safe transit through the strait.
Nations across Asia strike direct deals with Iran for Hormuz passage
Al Mayadeen | April 7, 2026
As US President Donald Trump threatens to “obliterate” Iran’s energy infrastructure unless it reopens the Strait of Hormuz, a growing number of countries are now negotiating directly with Tehran to secure safe passage for their ships.
Several nations in Asia, arguably the region most affected by the ongoing fuel crisis, have been able to get their vessels through the chokepoint, through which about a fifth of the world’s oil and gas normally transits. Tehran effectively closed the Strait after the country was attacked by the US and “Israel” on February 28.
It is a state of affairs that reflects a new geopolitical reality: access to the world’s most critical energy chokepoint is no longer governed by international maritime law, but by direct diplomacy with Iran.
A ‘de facto toll booth regime’
According to maritime tracking platform Kpler, commodity traffic through the strait fell by 95 percent when the war began. Before the US-Israeli aggression, around 100 ships transited daily. On some days this past week, that number was in the single digits.
But Iran has not closed the Strait entirely. Instead, it has created what maritime intelligence firm Lloyd’s List has described as a “de facto toll booth regime,” a permissions-based system operated by the IRGC, in which vessels from friendly countries are escorted through a narrow northern corridor near Larak Island.
As of this week, a second southern corridor near the Omani coastline has become operational, with Windward Maritime Intelligence tracking 11 transits on Sunday split across the two routes.
Iran names friendly nations
Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has publicly named the countries considered friendly enough for passage: China, Russia, India, Iraq, and Pakistan. Several others have since joined the list.
India was among the first countries to secure safe transit, reportedly without paying any fees. The Iranian embassy in New Delhi posted on social media that “our Indian friends are in safe hands.”
Pakistan was allocated 20 vessel slots by Tehran. “This is a welcome and constructive gesture by Iran,” Pakistani Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar said.
Thailand struck a deal after weeks of disruptions that included a Thai bulk carrier being struck by Iranian projectiles in March, leaving three crew members unaccounted for. A Thai tanker subsequently crossed without paying a fee.
Malaysia secures passage
Malaysia secured assurances of safe passage through what its Transport Minister described as a “good diplomatic relationship with the Iranian government.” The Iranian embassy in Kuala Lumpur said on Monday that the first Malaysian ship had passed through the strait since the war began. “Iran does not forget its friends,” it said.
A Malaysian Foreign Ministry statement confirmed that one of seven Malaysian-owned commercial vessels stranded in the strait has been granted safe passage and is now heading to its destination, following “high-level diplomatic engagements” and “constructive” talks with Iranian officials led by Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim.
Other nations join the list
The Philippines, despite its close ties with the US, became the latest Asian country to secure an agreement after what its foreign secretary described as “a very productive phone conversation” with Tehran. Iran assured “safe, unhindered and expeditious passage” for Philippines-flagged ships.
China, Iran’s largest oil buyer, confirmed that some of its ships had sailed through. Windward’s data show Chinese-linked vessels account for around 10 percent of the limited traffic still moving through the strait.
Indonesia secured passage for two of its vessels following diplomatic engagement with Tehran. Iraq has also been granted an exemption, with Windward identifying 21 Iraqi-linked tankers already operating under the arrangement.
Japan joined the list this week after a vessel operated by Mitsui OSK Lines carrying liquefied natural gas passed through the strait.
A system based on political alignment
The system is selectively allocated based on political alignment rather than open maritime norms. Of the roughly 280 global transit requests tracked by one intelligence firm, only 17 were approved. Some 670 commodity vessels were still stranded west of the strait as of last week.
Iran’s parliament is pursuing legislation to formally codify the toll system, likely making permanent a wartime measure and turning one of the world’s most important shipping routes into a fee-paying corridor controlled by its military.
A strategy that works
While Washington threatens military action and demands European naval support, Iran has quietly built a parallel system: nations that engage with Tehran diplomatically get their ships through. Those who follow Washington’s lead find the strait closed.
As the US-Israeli war on Iran enters its sixth week, the message is clear. Iran controls the Strait. Iran decides who passes. And Iran is proving that diplomacy, not threats, is the only path through. The countries that need their ships to move are making their own deals, and they are getting results.
NATO’s structural collapse – the outcome of deviation from reality

Global Times | April 3, 2026
When Donald Trump threatened to withdraw the US from NATO, Western capitals seemed not to show particular surprise; it was clear they had anticipated it. But the more important question is why, at this particular moment, such a statement could be made at all.
NATO’s current crisis is the consequence of a slow, structural erosion that has been underway for decades. It is also due to its inability to keep pace with the rapidly developing multipolar world.
The alliance’s original logic was straightforward. The Soviet Union posed a clear and present danger. Western Europe needed American protection. Washington needed strategic depth on the European continent. The threat was real, shared, and sufficient to hold divergent interests together.
That threat disappeared in 1991. NATO did not. Instead of dissolving, the alliance tried to consolidate its coherence. Therefore, it had to find a new target.
It began expanding eastward, then globally. Some voices have called for extending its reach into the Indo-Pacific, even to form an “economic NATO” against China, raising questions about NATO’s strategic focus and relevance in a changing world.
An alliance that must continually invent new enemies to justify its existence is already in structural trouble.
In an increasingly multipolar world, NATO’s attempt to wield military power, primarily through American power, to manage global affairs is no longer possible. However, some within NATO have not recognized this change.
The deeper problem is that Western interests have quietly but fundamentally diverged. When the Russia-Ukraine conflict erupted, Europe absorbed the consequences, including soaring energy prices, industrial outflow, and waves of refugees. Today, Europe’s economic outlook is sluggish, and trade friction with the US persists.
Europe has begun asking an uncomfortable question: Are we defending shared values that unite us, or merely subsidizing others’ strategic ambitions? This distinction has raised doubts about the alliance’s purpose.
The war in Iran has sharpened that question considerably.
European governments refused to participate. Even Britain, Washington’s most reliable partner, declined. This was not betrayal but a calculation rooted in domestic political shifts and strategic priorities, illustrating how internal political changes in key NATO members influence alliance cohesion and decision-making.
Trump’s rise is itself a symptom of deeper forces. America’s middle class has hollowed out. The US failures in Afghanistan and Iraq destroyed the domestic legitimacy of overseas intervention. Younger Americans show little attachment to the idea of their country as the world’s indispensable guarantor.
The fiscal arithmetic is unforgiving. The US federal debt has exceeded $36 trillion. Interest payments now surpass the defense budget. The cost of maintaining a global military presence is real, recurring, and increasingly unsustainable. This is not ideology. It is arithmetic.
As for an economic NATO directed at China, the very ambition reveals the depth of Western strategic anxiety. But if the military alliance is already fracturing, what would hold together a coalition that would ask its members to prepare for a long economic war with China, the world’s second-largest economy? Such a move would be fatal for NATO member states.
The idea of using NATO to expand Western ideology globally is either out of touch with the times or simply foolish. NATO no longer possesses that kind of power.
History offers no example of a great power that maintained its global commitments indefinitely after internal contradictions, economic decline, and domestic fractures. The US will not be the exception, highlighting the need for strategic adaptation.
NATO’s story is not yet finished. But the forces pulling it apart are not the invention of any single administration. They are the accumulated weight of unresolved contradictions, contradictions that have been building since the wall came down.
Trump did not create that weight. He simply brought forward the moment it hit the ground.
The war in Iran has provided the world with a window into what awaits hegemonic powers if they fail to keep pace with global progress. The fate of NATO is no exception.
Poll finds world views China better than US
Xinhua | April 4, 2026
A poll conducted by Gallup found that China surpassed the United States in global approval ratings in 2025, with a median of 36 percent approving of China’s leadership, compared with 31 percent for the United States.
Gallup’s report published Friday said China’s five-percentage-point advantage over the United States is the widest it has recorded in China’s favor in nearly 20 years.
The recent shift reflects a decline in US ratings alongside an increase for China. Median approval of US leadership fell from 39 percent in 2024 to 31 percent in 2025, returning to earlier lows, while China’s approval rose from 32 percent to 36 percent, according to the report.
The latest results are based on Gallup surveys conducted in 2025 in more than 130 countries, with around 1,000 respondents in each country. They do not account for recent U.S. foreign policy moves since the beginning of 2026, including its attack on Iran and its withdrawal from 66 international organizations.
Approval of US leadership has declined across many US allied nations, including many NATO partners, and sunk the most in Germany by 39 percentage points.
Now everyone is dumping US government bonds
Inside China Business | April 3, 2026
Foreign central banks and institution are selling off their holdings of US Treasury bonds. The war against Iran is driving bondholders to dump US government debt at a record pace, and foreign Treasury holdings at the NY Fed are at the lowest level in nearly fifteen years. The heavy liquidations are driving bond yields in the United States higher, and borrowing costs for government, and American households and businesses, are spiking higher.
Resources and links:
Foreign Central Banks Cut New York Fed Treasury Holdings To 2012 Lows https://finimize.com/content/foreign-…
China is dumping US treasuries and buying Gold https://www.fxstreet.com/analysis/chi…
Foreign central banks sell US Treasuries amid war in Iran https://ft.pressreader.com/1389/20260…
China’s Years-Long Retreat From US Treasuries Flags Bigger Risks https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articl…
Chinese Bonds Are Appealing as Reserve Assets, Gavekal Says https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articl…
China surpasses $1 trillion trade surplus despite Trump tariffs https://businessreport.co.za/business…
Lesson 3 (above). Balance of Payments — Why Current and Capital Accounts Net Out. https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/khan-a…
UN vote on Hormuz force delayed as Iran issues warning
Al Mayadeen | April 3, 2026
The United Nations Security Council on Friday postponed a vote on a draft resolution authorizing force in the Strait of Hormuz, as divisions deepen among major powers amid the ongoing war on Iran.
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi warned ahead of the session that any move within the Council could escalate tensions further. “Any provocative action by the aggressors and their supporters, including in the UN Security Council regarding the situation in the Strait of Hormuz, will only complicate the situation,” he said.
The vote, initially scheduled for today, concerned a Bahrain-led proposal that would allow the use of “defensive” force to protect commercial shipping in the strategic waterway. The measure is backed by the United States and several Gulf states, which have been heavily impacted by the disruption of maritime traffic.
However, the session was delayed with no new date announced. Russia, China, and France have raised objections to earlier drafts, particularly over language that could authorize military action, warning that such steps risk widening the war.
Diplomatic wrangling has already forced Bahrain to revise the proposal multiple times. Earlier versions reportedly included language permitting “all necessary means,” a formulation commonly interpreted as allowing military force, before being scaled back under pressure from opposing members.
The evolving text has been repeatedly watered down in an effort to avoid a veto, shifting from explicit authorization of force toward more limited “defensive” measures, with additional conditions on how any action would be carried out.
Despite backing the broader push led by Bahrain and the United States, France has played a more complex role in negotiations. Paris has participated in drafting efforts while also resisting stronger provisions, joining Russia and China in blocking earlier versions of the resolution during the so-called “silence procedure”, effectively preventing its automatic adoption.
At the same time, France has pushed for de-escalation and a delayed or limited mandate instead of immediate authorization of force, amid concerns that military action would further destabilize the situation.
The dispute unfolds against the backdrop of a severe crisis in the Strait of Hormuz, driven by Iranian restrictions imposed in retaliation for US-Israeli aggression. The resulting disruption to tanker traffic has triggered a major shock to global energy markets.
Despite the military buildup, Iran has maintained a controlled approach to maritime transit, allowing selective passage for non-hostile states while restricting vessels linked to the United States, “Israel,” and their allies.
How Indonesia’s tilt toward the US left it stranded in the Strait of Hormuz

People line up for gasoline at a Pertamina’s gas station in Sukoharjo, Central Java, Indonesia, on March 26, 2026. [Agoes Rudianto – Anadolu Agency]
By Bhima Yudhistira and Dr. Muhammad Zulfikar Rakhmat | MEMO | March 29, 2026
In today’s fractured geopolitical landscape, energy flows are no longer governed by markets alone. They are shaped—often decisively—by politics. Nowhere is this clearer than in the unfolding crisis in the Strait of Hormuz, where Indonesia finds itself on the wrong side of a strategic divide.
As tensions escalate in the Middle East, Iran has adopted a selective approach to maritime access through the strait, one of the world’s most vital energy chokepoints. Rather than a blanket closure, Tehran has opted for a calibrated policy: friendly nations may pass; others must wait.
The consequences for Indonesia are immediate and stark. While countries like Malaysia, Thailand, China, India and Russia have secured safe passage for their tankers, two Indonesian vessels remain stranded. This is not a logistical hiccup. It is a geopolitical signal.
Iran’s own officials have made the logic explicit. Access is granted based on diplomatic alignment and strategic trust. Nations perceived as cooperative—or at least non-hostile—are accommodated. Others are left navigating uncertainty.
Indonesia, it appears, has misread the moment.
For decades, Jakarta prided itself on a doctrine of “free and active” foreign policy—non-aligned, pragmatic and flexible. That posture allowed Indonesia to engage multiple power centers without becoming entangled in their rivalries. But recent policy choices suggest a drift away from that equilibrium.
By signing the Agreement on Reciprocal Trade (ART) with the United States and joining the Board of Peace (BoP), Indonesia has moved beyond nominal non-alignment into visible proximity to the US orbit.
The ART is not merely a trade deal; it reshapes tariffs, supply chains and regulatory frameworks in ways that bind Indonesia more closely to U.S.-led economic and security systems. Meanwhile, the decision to join the BoP—widely criticized at home as a strategic misstep—signals alignment with Washington’s Middle East posture, particularly in the context of Gaza.
In Tehran’s eyes, these moves blur the line between cooperation and alignment. In a conflict environment defined by binary loyalties, even economic agreements and diplomatic platforms are read as strategic signals. In that context, perception is policy.
The cost of that perception is now measurable.
First, energy security. The Strait of Hormuz handles a significant share of global oil shipments, and disruptions there ripple across supply chains worldwide. If Indonesian tankers cannot pass freely, the country must source crude and liquefied petroleum gas from alternative routes—longer, riskier and far more expensive.
Shipping costs rise. Insurance premiums spike. Subsidy burdens swell. In a country where energy prices are politically sensitive, the fiscal implications are profound. What begins as a diplomatic miscalculation quickly becomes a budgetary strain.
Second, competitiveness. Malaysia and Thailand, having secured passage, are better positioned to maintain stable energy inputs and export flows. Their manufacturing sectors—already integrated into global supply chains—gain an advantage over Indonesia’s.
This is not just about oil. It is about the broader architecture of trade. Delays in energy supply affect production timelines. Disruptions in shipping lanes threaten exports of automotive components, industrial goods and commodities. In a tightly coupled global economy, reliability is currency—and Indonesia risks devaluation.
Third, macroeconomic stability. Higher import costs feed directly into inflation. A widening subsidy bill pressures public finances. And as external balances deteriorate, the rupiah faces renewed volatility. These are not abstract risks; they are the building blocks of economic stress.
All of this stems from a single, uncomfortable reality: geopolitics has overtaken economics.
Iran’s policy in the Strait of Hormuz underscores a broader shift in global order. Strategic chokepoints are no longer neutral spaces. They are instruments of leverage. Access is conditional. Neutrality, if not actively maintained, is easily questioned.
Indonesia’s response so far—continued negotiation and diplomatic outreach—may yet yield results. But negotiation from a position of ambiguity is inherently difficult. Other countries have secured passage not merely through dialogue, but through clear, consistent alignment in the eyes of Tehran.
Jakarta must therefore confront a difficult question: can it afford its current trajectory?
Recalibrating foreign policy does not mean abandoning partnerships or retreating into isolation. It means restoring balance. Indonesia’s strength has always been its ability to engage across divides—to be trusted by competing blocs precisely because it was not seen as belonging to any of them.
That credibility now needs rebuilding.
The immediate priority is practical: secure the release and passage of Indonesian vessels, stabilize energy supply and prevent further economic fallout. But the longer-term task is strategic. Indonesia must reassess its positioning in a world where neutrality is no longer assumed, but demonstrated.
The Strait of Hormuz crisis is a warning. It reveals how quickly global alignments can translate into tangible costs—and how vulnerable even large economies can be when geopolitical signals are misread.
For Indonesia, the lesson is clear. In an era of weaponized interdependence, foreign policy is no longer a distant abstraction. It is an economic imperative.
And getting it wrong is no longer affordable.
Iran has the last laugh
By M. K. BHADRAKUMAR | Indian Punchline | March 27, 2026
Wars are always unpredictable. The most famous instance is of another armada like the US’ in the Persian Gulf at the moment — the Spanish Armada, a 130-ship naval fleet sent by Spain in 1588 commanded by Alonso de Guzmán, Duke of Medina Sidonia, an aristocrat appointed by Philip II of Spain to invade England, depose Queen Elizabeth I, and restore Catholicism.
Despite its strength, the Spanish Armada was defeated in the English Channel by a smaller English force using fireships and better artillery, then largely destroyed by storms while retreating around Scotland and Ireland.
The US president Donald Trump’s much-touted armada has more or less the same mission as the Spanish Armada — ranging from regime change to overthrow of the Islamic system of governance to the unspoken leitmotif of a Crusade. Curiously, it seems destined for a similar miserable ending too, the US’ overwhelming military superiority notwithstanding.
Sir Alexander William Younger KCMGUS, former head of MI6, said in an interview with the Economist on Monday that Iran has gained the “upper hand” in the ongoing war with the United States and Iran. Sir Alexander complimented Iran.
More than one factor contributed to this “paradigm shift” of the Big Boy coming out second best. Bad planning, lack of a coherent strategy, over-confidence over the US’ apparent military superiority– all these played their part in the undoing of the plot against Iran that the two aggressors hatched.
It is now out in the open that, incredibly enough, just 16 days into the war, the US forces were already running out of ATACMS/PrSM ground-attack missiles; and, Israel is about to expend its entire Arrow interceptor missiles by the end March.
The Royal United Services Institute in London published on March 24 an analysis/expert opinion highlighting that the war in Iran has virtually hollowed out the inventory of the US and Israel’s “most critical assets” with no prospects of replenishment anytime soon in a near future due to the fragilities of the US defence industrial base.
The findings are a stark warning that with the conflict having “settled into a grinding trial of attrition” after the first 96 hours, the inventories of long-range interceptors and precision strike weapons are nearing exhaustion.
The CEO of Rheinmetall, Armin Papperger warned on 19 March that global stockpiles are “empty or nearly empty” and if the war continues another month, “we nearly have no missiles available”.
To be sure, Iranians are watching closely and that explains their defiant stance that “Iran will end the war when it decides to do so and when its conditions are met.” Tehran has warned that it will continue to deal “heavy blows” across the Middle East. Media reports confirm Iran’s claim that it has rendered dysfunctional the US bases all across the region. Had it not been about a war, there is cause for celebration when the notorious bully gets thrashed by a little brother.
Word is spreading in the US despite the cover-up by the administration that “The U.S. war in Iran is taking a mounting toll on America’s military, with rising casualties, dwindling munitions stockpiles, a sidelined aircraft carrier and numerous downed aircraft just three weeks into the conflict, ” to quote from The Hill, an influential newspaper that circulates among lawmakers in the US Congress.
The report adds, “At least 13 U.S. service members have been killed, while another 232 have been injured since the U.S.-Israeli war against Tehran began on Feb. 28. In addition, some 16 American aircraft have been destroyed, the USS Gerald R. Ford aircraft carrier was damaged in a laundry room fire earlier this month and American forces are quickly blowing through stocks of air defence and long-range munitions.”
The commentary carried by RUSI says that Iran has damaged at least a dozen US and allied radars and satellite terminals, which has impacted the efficiency of interception. Evidently, using 10 or 11 interceptors for one Iranian missile or 8 patriot missiles for one Iranian drone becomes unsustainable going ahead. It underscored that the US military is “approximately a month, or less, away from running out of ATACMS/PrSM ground-attack missiles and THAAD interceptors. And Israel is in an even more precarious spot, with its Arrow interceptor missiles likely to be completely expended by the end of March.”
In real terms, this implies accepting greater risk for aircraft and tolerating more Iranian missiles and drones damaging US-Israeli forces and infrastructure. The audacious Iranian attacks this week on Dimona, Israel’s nuclear city, is a vivid example.
“The precariousness … could possibly explain why President Trump is already suggesting the ‘winding down’ of the Iran war; it could take years to replace what was expended in only 16 days,” the commentary points out. Given the limitations of the US defence industrial base, “it will likely take at least 5 years to replenish the 500 plus Tomahawk missiles already fired in the war.
“Worse, sourcing critical defence minerals, rare earths, and materials to make the weapons and munitions is complicated by China. China controls most of the world’s gallium and germanium, and Beijing has imposed numerous mineral export controls since 2023, to prevent the US and its allies from acquiring these necessary inputs for the defence industrial base.”
The “strategic consequence” of all this is that continued fighting with Iran not only increases the risk to forces in-theatre but engenders the bigger risk of what it does to deterrence and defence elsewhere, such as “protecting Taiwan and supporting Ukraine”.
Besides, if the US prioritises replenishing its own stocks, it slows deliveries to other partners. Allies are already signalling concern that “an American focus on its own military replenishment will delay weapon and munition deliveries they have already paid for.”
The reigning superpower that was Spain in the 16th century saw its power crumble after the defeat of the Armada, while England would soon control an empire that the sun never set on. Is history repeating on a similar template in our world in transition?
More Iran War fallout: Maritime insurance industry shifts from London to China
Inside China Business | March 26, 2026
China and Hong Kong comprise the most valuable fleets of commercial ships in the world, and the largest numbers of bulk carriers, container ships, and tankers. Japan, Korea, and Singapore also have huge investments in global shipping. But European and American insurance brokers underwrite 90% of maritime insurance in the world, and on the first day of the war against Iran canceled insurance coverage on vessels already in contested waters. Hong Kong now writes insurance coverage for ships from Mainland China and Hong Kong, even those transiting the Persian Gulf. What’s more, Iranian authorities are clearing China-flagged vessels to pass safely.
Resources and links:
Top 10 shipowner countries/regions in the world https://vesselslink.com/blogs/news/to…
Hong Kong marine insurers gain edge over London with cheaper war-risk cover for Chinese ships https://www.scmp.com/business/banking…
Insurance Clubs to Halt Ship War-Risk Cover in Persian Gulf https://www.claimsjournal.com/news/na…
Insurance Clubs to Halt Ship War-Risk Cover in Persian Gulf https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articl…
Traffic is trickling through Strait of Hormuz: Who’s moving and who’s stranded https://www.cnbc.com/2026/03/18/hormu…
