Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

After 6 months of war, why aren’t oil prices even higher?

By Sam Fraser | Responsible Statecraft | August 25, 2026

For decades, the potential closure of the Strait of Hormuz has been considered the ultimate doomsday scenario for global oil markets. So, when Iran effectively closed the Strait earlier this year in response to the joint U.S.-Israeli assault, many analysts warned that oil prices could skyrocket to record highs.

The logic was straightforward. Prior to the war, about 20% of the global oil supply transited the Strait. A loss of supply on this scale could easily have pushed oil prices to $150 or even $200 per barrel — but it didn’t. Instead, prices peaked around $120 per barrel in April and have largely stayed below $100 since June.

To understand the dynamics that have so far prevented an even higher price spike, and to get a sense of where oil supply and prices may be headed as the conflict drags on, I spoke with Rory Johnston, a leading oil markets analyst and the author of the Commodity Context blog. Our conversation has been edited for length and clarity.

Sam Fraser: Let’s talk about why we haven’t seen the $150-200 per barrel oil prices that you warned about early in the war. You’ve pointed to a few reasons, including China’s massive import cuts. As we understand it, what has China done with their oil imports and how have they managed it?

Rory Johnston: It’s a bit of a mystery. At this stage, what we know for sure is that China reduced its crude oil imports by over five million barrels a day, roughly 45% of their total pre-war import appetite. For China, there’s two endpoints of that crude oil balance: into a refinery or into storage. We know that China had been building up a massive volume of strategic reserves prior to the war.

Essentially half of the 5 million barrels a day reduction can be explained roughly by reductions in refining runs in China. The remainder is a question of balancing in and out of stockpiles. Some of it would’ve been likely a drawdown of less visible or underground stockpiles. And the other portion of it is the halting of that prior pace of stockpile building. The main debate is how much each of these factors is contributing. If, let’s say, 80% of that remainder is a halt to prior purchases that were building strategic stocks, that is a bearish outcome for oil prices because it means that Beijing doesn’t need to replace those volumes anytime soon. But if they are aggressively drawing down less visible strategic stocks right now, that’s a much more bullish interpretation because it means they can’t keep going on forever and they’re going to need to replace those stockpiles.

On the refined product side, they cut refining runs by about 2.5 to 3 million barrels a day. What are they doing with that prior flow of diesel, jet fuel, et cetera? And that’s where we start to get even more speculative. Above-ground storage tanks for refined products don’t have floating roofs. We can’t independently verify their fill.

It comes down to the apparent consumption and the apparent available supply of these fuels within China. For gasoline and diesel, each of those supplies have apparently fallen by about 20%, which is a stark reduction. There’s no evidence that people in China are just driving a fifth less. If they aren’t actually cutting back that much on consumption, where is the fuel coming from? Prior to the war, we suspected that China was also building strategic reserves of refined fuels. Again, we can’t verify that, but if they had built that up, they could be drawing it down. We’re then faced with that same question as in crude oil, how much of this is a cessation of prior stock building and how much of this is the drawdown of existing stock?

For reference, the last moment we saw anything like this in terms of apparent consumption collapse was COVID zero in 2022 when the country was entirely locked down.

Fraser: So we can say that stockpiles of refined products must exist, but we have no insight into their size or how much is being drawn down or how sustainable those drawdowns would be?

Johnston: Correct. There are mixed estimates, but I think they are at best estimates. It’s funny, I think in some ways the lack of verifiable data allows people to speak very confidently about what’s happening in China, because there’s no data to rebut virtually any argument. That’s just allowing people to run with it without any kind of real pushback.

Fraser: How have we seen the Chinese buying patterns change since the U.S.-Iran Memorandum of Understanding and since it collapsed?

Johnston: What we saw following the MOU was a surge of exiting cargoes from Hormuz. The vast majority of that seems to have routed towards China. What we saw was that, at the very bottom, Chinese crude oil imports fell to around 6 million barrels a day in June. And then those spiked back up to more than 10 million barrels a day in July, or at least that was the high point in July. Roughly a month later, those imports are back down around six. You’ve seen a rollover back to where we stood pre-MOU.

Fraser: Do we know how long this import suppression can continue?

Johnston:. Let’s say this has been entirely a drawdown of stocks, which seems implausible. Even then, they have more than a billion barrels of crude oil stocks that we know about for sure. If they want to support the market to their maximum ability, they can do that for months further. But in doing so, they would deplete the entirety of the energy security blanket they’ve spent almost two decades constructing.

Fraser: Let’s move on to the strategic petroleum reserve releases by the U.S. and other partners. To what degree have those been instrumental in keeping prices from going a lot higher?

Johnston: It’s part of the suite that the world has kind of engaged in to blunt those effects. This is the largest release of strategic stocks on record. Depending on the exact month you’re talking about, it has potentially been over 3 million barrels a day of incremental supply coming from OECD SPRs. Without that, the market would’ve been much tighter and we likely wouldn’t have experienced the same relief even with China’s import cut at the same time.

Fraser: Last week the U.S. SPR dipped under 300 million barrels. There’s a lot of discussion of what the physical limits on those stockpiles are given that they’re stored in salt caverns. They need a certain amount of fill to maintain structural integrity. Are we anywhere close to pushing up against the U.S. ability to continue drawing down from those stockpiles?

Johnston: I do not believe we are. I think that you have probably at least another 200 million barrels that can be readily drawn down. With the required fill level, absolutely it would be a massive issue if you just drew it down and left a vacuum in there. It would implode on itself. But they don’t do that. They one-to-one replace a barrel of crude oil extracted with a barrel of saturated brine. So theoretically it should maintain the same fill. The issue for SPRs is not necessarily fill level, but number of refill and empty cycles. It’s the actual up-and-down motion that disturbs and further erodes the walls and structural integrity.

I think that the SPR caverns can get below 100 million barrels of fill before we run into any issues.

Fraser: So if we continued the current rate of drawdown, that would take us well into next year.

Johnston: Correct.

Fraser: Over the course of the war, Trump or someone in his administration will make a statement about how diplomacy is progressing or about how much oil is coming out of the strait. And even if those are quickly disproven, there is a downward impact on prices. So why do these traders keep listening to Trump? Has there been a change in the reaction of markets over the course of this war?

Johnston: You definitely get smaller drawdowns to these kinds of jawboning attempts today than you would have, say, in March and April, where there are multiple days that you saw $15 to $20 per barrel reductions in the span of a day.

When you look at the history of oil, there’s a tendency on these geopolitical events to overdo it. That’s a natural kind of fear-driven phenomenon. In some ways Trump has short-circuited that normal behavior in oil markets. Because while you’re right that it’s never coming true, the price action is coming true. At the end of the day, for prices to go higher, you need traders to bid higher. And if they bid higher and they get blown out of the water and they lose their jobs, they’re going to be replaced by someone that doesn’t bid higher on geopolitical risk. It has successfully arrested the upside volatility. But if we keep getting tighter, markets will continue to respond higher; we just won’t get those runaway phenomena that we would’ve seen historically.

Fraser: Since the start of the war, we’ve seen Saudi Arabia and the UAE successfully use pipelines as an alternative route to get oil out of the Gulf. How much oil are those getting out at this point? And has the Houthi blockade of Saudi shipping in the Red Sea had a meaningful effect on this?

Johnston: The total volume coming out of Emirates at Fujairah and then the west coast of Saudi Arabia and the Red Sea rose to about 6-7 million barrels. It was about 2-3 million before, so that was an incremental change of 4-5 million barrels.

To your question with the Houthis, it has absolutely been having an effect. As soon as they started attacking Saudi ships, the entire Red Sea fleet went dark. Everyone turned off their transponders, making it much harder to verify flows out of Saudi Arabia. Verifiable transits of Saudi tankers through the Bab al-Mandab have gone functionally to zero. They still are probably getting some out, but we’re also seeing evidence of flows north into the Mediterranean. Pre-war flows here were around a million barrels a day, give or take. That’s jumped over the past week or two to around 2.5 million barrels a day, presumed Saudi flow.

Over the past two weeks, we’ve also seen Saudi Arabia begin loading tankers in the Gulf again, which they hadn’t done since the collapse of the MOU. And the question is, does Riyadh know something? Is something big going to break in the Hormuz negotiations? Or are they being forced back into the Gulf? You’re seeing reports now that they are participating in the Emirati-led shuttle trade, ship-to-ship transfers in the Gulf of Oman. It seems likely that some of that is displaced barrels coming back from the Red Sea. So Saudi Arabia is needing to diversify away from its diversification. There’s a poetic side to it.

Fraser: Pulling all these factors together, where are we left in terms of a kind of global supply shortage? And what kinds of price impacts can we expect if that persists over the next few months?

Johnston: It’s very hard to estimate global balance right now. My bet would be 2-4 million barrels a day undersupplied on a global basis.

The rub on top of that is that we now have a parallel crisis that’s emerging on the refining side of the slate. So even if we’ve sorted out what was happening on the crude oil side, we have the Ukrainian hammering of Russian refineries, the attacks in the Black Sea, the reduction in U.S. exports now that stocks have drawn down, and China is not exporting refined products either. All together this further tightens global refined product markets.

If this persists and we keep drawing down crude oil stocks, the crude oil price is going to keep rising. On top of that, we could see refined product prices independently going higher. So that’s just an amplification. For consumers, it’s refined product prices and not crude oil that are going to drive those economic issues.

Fraser: So even though these factors we’ve discussed have kept oil prices down so far, and the biggest of these can persist for a while, we could still be looking at those extremely elevated prices by a few months from now.

Johnston: Easily. We’re already feeling it. Refined prices are already at demand-destructive levels. It’s just a question of whether they are at sufficiently demand-destructive levels. It’s the same fundamental concern I would’ve had back in April, playing out on a much longer timeline and now more on the product side than the entire oil complex.

Sam Fraser is a writer based in New York City. He holds a Master’s in International Finance and Economic Policy from Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs, where his studies focused on the changing global trade system. Previously, Sam worked as Senior Communications Associate and Publications Manager at the Quincy Institute.

August 25, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Wars for Israel | , , , , | Comments Off on After 6 months of war, why aren’t oil prices even higher?

Sanctioning the Dollar Iran Already Left: Why Bessent’s “Economic D-Day” Is Toothless

By Larry C. Johnson | SONAR21 | August 24, 2026 

There was one sentence in Scott Bessent’s Monday sanctions announcement that gave the whole game away. Anyone who launders money for the Iranian regime, the Treasury Secretary warned, “will be removed from the US dollar system.” He meant it as a threat of annihilation. It is, instead, a confession of the policy’s central weakness. The entire architecture of what Bessent has branded “Operation Economic Outcast” rests on a single assumption — that Iran and its trading partners need the U.S. dollar. They increasingly do not. And a threat to bar someone from the dollar system means nothing to a trade that has already walked out of it and into the Chinese yuan.

What Bessent actually announced

Strip away the “economic D-Day” theatrics and the substance is a secondary-sanctions framework: the United States threatens to punish any country or entity that refuses to sever economic ties with Iran, expands the categories of activity exposed to those secondary sanctions into five new fields — digital assets, technology, gold, aviation, and shipping — and designates roughly sixty individuals, entities, and vessels tied to nuclear and missile procurement, cyber operations, and oil smuggling. The mechanism of pain, in every case, is the same: exclusion from the dollar-based financial system that Washington polices through its control of dollar clearing, SWIFT messaging, and correspondent banking.

That is a devastating weapon against anyone who lives inside the dollar system. It is close to irrelevant against those who have deliberately built their most important trade outside it. And Iran’s lifeline — the oil trade with China — is now largely outside it.

The trade that runs on yuan

Follow the barrels. China is now the buyer of over 80 percent of Iran’s seaborne crude exports. Iran is shipping somewhere around 1.65 to 1.8 million barrels a day, almost all of it to the independent “teapot” refiners of Shandong, moved by a shadow fleet of more than 350 tankers using ship-to-ship transfers off Malaysia, Singapore, and the Sea of Oman, the cargoes routinely rebranded as Malaysian or Omani. And critically, the money for it increasingly does not move in dollars. Payment flows in yuan, routed through small Chinese banks and Hong Kong trading shells, settled in a growing volume of renminbi that bypasses the dollar clearing system entirely.

The plumbing for this is China’s Cross-Border Interbank Payment System, CIPS — the settlement network the People’s Bank of China launched in 2015 precisely to clear cross-border yuan transactions without touching the Western financial architecture. Its use has surged in lockstep with the war. CIPS processed on the order of $214 billion in March 2026, hit a single-day record of 1.22 trillion yuan — roughly $178 billion — across nearly 42,000 transactions, and saw its average daily value jump about 50 percent from February to March, a spike analysts tied directly to the Iran conflict and rising yuan demand in oil trade. More than five thousand institutions are now connected. These channels allow settlement without any intermediary US bank in the chain — which is the entire point.

Nor is this confined to China. Even Indian refiners buying rare cargoes of Iranian oil have settled the payments in yuan, routed through the Shanghai branch of an Indian bank, because Iran wants a currency that sidesteps the dollar sanctions channel. Iran’s Revolutionary Guard has reportedly begun demanding yuan or cryptocurrency for oil transactions outright. When Bessent adds “digital assets” and “gold” to his sanctions categories, he is chasing evasion routes Iran is already using by design, through a shadow system purpose-built to be untraceable.

You cannot freeze a yuan payment out of a dollar system it never enters. That is not a loophole in Bessent’s plan. It is the plan’s foundation, missing.

The market already delivered its verdict

The most eloquent judgment on these sanctions came not from a pundit but from the oil market itself. If traders believed Bessent’s “economic onslaught” would actually choke off Iranian barrels, crude would have spiked on the announcement. It did the opposite. Brent fell about 2.3 percent on August 24, sliding below $92, as investors concluded the measures were unlikely to remove Iranian oil from the market. A sanctions package advertised as an economic D-Day was met by the market marking the price of oil down. The traders who move real money on real supply read the announcement for exactly what it was: sound and fury aimed at a target the dollar can no longer reach.

The one tooth Bessent won’t bare

There is precisely one measure that could actually bite the yuan trade: sanctioning the major Chinese banks and the CIPS architecture that clear it — cutting large Chinese financial institutions out of the dollar system and forcing Beijing to choose. And that is the step Bessent, once again, announced but did not take. He warned that at least one major financial institution could face sanctions this week, and said China would not be exempt. A threat, not an action — the same threat that has hovered over this campaign for months and never descends, because executing it means a financial rupture with Beijing on the eve of a planned Trump-Xi meeting, and an oil-price shock Washington cannot afford heading into the midterms.

And even if he pulled that trigger, the trade is engineered to survive it. The yuan payments already move through small Chinese banks and Hong Kong front companies precisely so that the large, dollar-exposed institutions stay clean and the flow continues if a big bank is hit. The system was designed by people who assumed Washington would eventually come for it. Bessent is threatening to breach a wall its builders reinforced years ago.

Ten years of sanctions, and a larger economy

Step back from Monday’s announcement and ask the longer question: what has a decade of sanctions actually done to the size of Iran’s economy? Measured properly, it has grown.

The measure matters, because there are two ways to size an economy and here they tell opposite stories. In nominal dollars — the plane on which sanctions operate — Iran looks devastated: its dollar GDP is around $300 billion in 2026, and dollar income per head has been falling fast, because the rial has been pulverized and everything Iranian looks cheap when priced in a currency Iranians increasingly cannot obtain. But nominal-dollar GDP largely measures the exchange rate, not the economy. Measured by purchasing power parity — which values what Iran actually produces at the prices Iranians actually pay, stripping out the collapsed currency — Iran’s GDP has risen from roughly $1.4 trillion in 2015, when the JCPOA-era sanctions architecture was in force, to about $2.18 trillion in 2026, by the IMF’s reckoning the world’s twenty-third-largest economy. That is an expansion of more than fifty percent over the same decade of “maximum pressure” that was supposed to break it.

The caveat belongs in plain sight, not buried: part of that gain is simply more Iranians — the population has grown by roughly a sixth since 2015 — so per-capita output has risen far more modestly, and none of it means Iranian households feel richer, with inflation running near forty percent and the currency in ruins. Growth of the economy is not prosperity for the family. But that is a different claim from the one that matters for sanctions policy. A pressure campaign that can wreck a currency and still not shrink real output is a campaign that produces hardship without submission. Iran has now demonstrated exactly that across two sanctions architectures — the JCPOA snapback and its “maximum pressure” successors — and ten years of data. Bessent is adding a chapter to a book whose ending is already written.

The honest limits

This is a dollar bypass, not the death of the dollar. The greenback still makes up around 57 percent of global foreign-exchange reserves against roughly 2 percent for the yuan, and only a low single-digit share of cross-border trade settles in renminbi; CIPS remains far smaller than the SWIFT-and-CHIPS system it shadows. The claim here is narrow and it is enough: a determined seller like Iran, with a willing Chinese counterparty, can route its oil revenue around the dollar — not that the world has.

Nor are the sanctions literally costless to Tehran. The friction of operating in the shadows is real: Iran sells its crude at discounts of $14 to $17 a barrel below Brent, up from $8 in 2023, precisely because sanctions raise the risk and complexity of buying it; its fiscal break-even sits far above the price it actually realizes, and the rial has lost most of its value. Bessent’s measures will add a little more friction at the margin — another turn of the screw on the discount, another few front companies to replace.

But friction is not a chokehold, and a poorer Iran is not a compliant one. The sanctions make Iran’s oil cheaper and its economy more strained; they do not, and cannot, sever the yuan-denominated artery to China that keeps the oil flowing and the regime funded. That artery is the thing Bessent promised to cut, and it is the one thing his announcement does not touch.

Bessent has threatened to expel Iran and its partners from a financial system Iran has spent years leaving. The dollar guillotine is real, and it still falls with terrible force on anyone standing beneath it — but Iran’s oil trade stepped off the block and into the yuan, and every fresh round of dollar-weaponization only sharpens the incentive for others to follow. The measures announced Monday will generate headlines, a few dozen designations, and a marginal widening of the discount China already enjoys on Iranian crude. What they will not do is the thing they were sold to do: collapse Iran’s options and force it to heel. You cannot sever a lifeline that no longer runs through your hands. Bessent is standing guard at a door Iran walked out of a long time ago, threatening to lock it.

August 25, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Wars for Israel | , , , | Comments Off on Sanctioning the Dollar Iran Already Left: Why Bessent’s “Economic D-Day” Is Toothless

CA ATTACKS JOURNALISM, THE CLANCY CONTROVERSY & MRNA’s CANCER CURE?

The Download | August 24, 2026

This week on The Download, California’s latest attempt to police journalism raises new questions about who gets to define misinformation. As the Lindsay Clancy trial reaches its final arguments, Jefferey asks whether another powerful player is escaping scrutiny. Then, an undercover investigation reveals how quickly a complaint about ADHD can open the door to a staggering menu of psychiatric drugs.

Plus, Moderna’s new mRNA cancer-vaccine “breakthrough” faces questions beyond the glowing headlines, ‘Face the Nation’ moderator Margaret Brennan’s COVID-mandate narrative collides with her own record, and Jefferey issues a major call to action as Secretary Kennedy seeks public input on federal vaccine recommendations.

August 25, 2026 Posted by | Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science, Video | | Comments Off on CA ATTACKS JOURNALISM, THE CLANCY CONTROVERSY & MRNA’s CANCER CURE?

Newsom Signs Content Takedown Law Following Nick Shirley Investigations

The precedent is that a legislature can keep inventing new categories of people entitled to content removals

By Dan Frieth | Reclaim The Net | August 24, 2026

California Governor Gavin Newsom has signed into law a bill that critics say is designed to silence citizen journalists like Nick Shirley and let taxpayer-funded organizations, some of them suspected of fraud, remove documentation of their activities from the internet.

The law, which was signed on Saturday and goes into effect on October 1, 2027, is officially there to protect the privacy of employees and volunteers working in organizations serving immigrants, but the way it does it is by giving them the power to demand that their images and personal information be deleted from the internet, based on a claim of “reasonable fear.”

No police report or court approval is needed for this, only the claim. There is no exemption for journalists or journalism.

The bill, which was authored by Democrat Assemblywoman Mia Bonta, was dubbed the “Stop Nick Shirley Act” by those opposing it, as it is seen as a direct attack on his work.

Shirley has been investigating and documenting alleged fraud in programs meant to help immigrants, and has had millions of views on X for his videos, including one showing empty buildings in Minnesota registered as daycares that he said were used to defraud the system of $110 million.

The new law in California will apply to all organizations providing legal representation, advocacy, case management, humanitarian relief, translation, counseling, and healthcare to immigrants. It also sets up an address confidentiality program, modeled on California’s Safe at Home program.

Those who don’t comply with the demands for content removal can be fined $10,000 and also face civil and criminal liability and imprisonment.

Shirley responded to the signing of the bill into law by saying that it was created only after he exposed fraud in immigrant communities, and accused Newsom and California politicians of showing their true face as “corrupt politicians” who, “when the fraud is exposed, create new laws to protect the fraudsters and penalize those who expose it.”

He also said that the law makes “immigration support service providers” a protected class in California, and noted that thanks to this, if he films a hospice “with no patients that are receiving millions through Medicaid,” the owner can prevent him from publishing the footage, and if he does anyway, he could get a huge fine.

August 25, 2026 Posted by | Corruption, Deception | , , | Comments Off on Newsom Signs Content Takedown Law Following Nick Shirley Investigations

Dozens of ex-lawmakers, staff landed at military firms since 2015

By Julian Cooper | Responsible Statecraft | August 24, 2026

In the last decade, 31 former members of Congress and top staff have left Capitol Hill and joined the military-industrial complex as lobbyists or contractors, according to a new report from the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.

The 21 lawmakers named in the report served on either the House or Senate Armed Services Committee, the legislative bodies that set the Pentagon’s annual policies through the annual National Defense Authorization Act. In addition, the report names 10 former senior committee staffers who transitioned to working as weapons industry government liaisons or lobbyists.

These 31 former officials represent a snapshot of the military-industrial complex’s “revolving door,” through which ex-policymakers transition from setting the Pentagon’s agenda in Congress to cashing in on those same policies in the private sector. “That report we published is the most direct explanation we’ve ever seen of why the defense budget always goes up,” said John Mecklin, the author of the report and former editor-in-chief of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.

The report highlighted a variety of potential ethics conflicts, focusing in particular on the growing path between Congress and Silicon Valley defense tech startups.

Chris Vieson, the former staff director of the House Armed Services Committee (HASC), was appointed earlier this year to the National Commission on the Future of the Navy, established to advise Congress on everything “from shipbuilding and acquisition to maintenance and repair, workforce, training, and modernization.” Vieson is also an active registered lobbyist for two defense startups: Saronic Inc., a manufacturer of unmanned maritime vehicles; and watercraft builder Whiskey Project Group. Previously, Vieson worked as a lobbyist for Andreessen Horowitz, the venture capital firm gaining influence in the Pentagon and pushing AI integration.

According to its executive director, the National Commission on the Future of the Navy aims to modernize the Navy to prepare for conflict with China and Iran. As part of this goal, the Commission will “test emerging ideas such as a hybrid fleet and expanded use of unmanned systems.” Vieson’s lobbying client, Saronic Inc., is one manufacturer of such unmanned systems.

While the revolving-door phenomenon is not new, the report captures the increasing influence of a new generation of Silicon Valley military firms. Former HASC member Mike Gallagher and staffer Jeff Miller have taken up jobs as an executive and a lobbyist, respectively, for Palantir. Former Republican staff director of the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) Christian D. Brose is now the Chief Strategy Officer for Anduril, an autonomous weapons startup valued at $61 billion in its latest round of fundraising.

According to Mecklin, Congress is eager to let Silicon Valley officials into their bureaucracy. “It takes the Pentagon many, many years to acquire a new defense system like a fighter plane. With a high-tech system, you just can’t wait that long,” he said. “So they found a way around the complicated acquisition processes of the Defense Department.”

Likewise, Silicon Valley weapons startups that wish to challenge prime contractors like Boeing and Lockheed Martin are desperate to hire former politicians. “If you’re a company that wants to get into defense contracting, it’s highly beneficial to hire people that understand the process of federal appropriations in the defense sector,” Mecklin explained.

The Bulletin’s revolving-door report also details a who’s-who of top congressional stock traders. Rep. Austin Scott (R-Ga.), who has served on HASC since 2015, has been trading GE Aerospace stock via his spouse since 2023. Scott’s trades this year violated the STOCK Act, a bill passed in 2012 to curb insider trading. That makes Scott one of seven Armed Services Committee members to violate the STOCK Act this year, generally for failing to disclose trades within 45 days, as the law mandates.

Rep. Lisa McClain (R-Mich.) is another HASC member who has benefited from military contractor stocks. In December 2025, she disclosed her husband’s $100,000-$250,000 purchase of stock in Elon Musk’s xAI, which merged with SpaceX soon after in February. McClain’s husband’s xAI shares were converted into SpaceX shares months before the company’s historic IPO in June. McClain previously violated the STOCK Act for her delayed disclosure of a trade worth up to $450,000 in Palantir stock.

The report also makes note of Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.) trading stock for prime defense contractor Lockheed Martin and aerospace manufacturer Honeywell. Tuberville, one of the most active stock traders in Congress, has served on SASC since 2021. When President Donald Trump faced criticism this spring for his own portfolio of weapons stocks, Tuberville told a reporter for MeidasTouch, “I do the same thing.”

Mecklin believes that laws like the STOCK Act are insufficient to curb members of Congress cashing in on defense spending. “The way you really stem this kind of behavior is to have inspectors general and law enforcement agencies that are on the lookout for them. Occasionally, take up one of these egregious cases and just prosecute it,” said Mecklin.

“Unless you have a system that actually scares these people so they cut it out, it’s going to continue.”

Julian Cooper is a Chicago-based journalist, an editorial intern for The Progressive, and a research intern for the Quincy Institute’s Democratizing Foreign Policy program.

August 24, 2026 Posted by | Corruption, Militarism | | Comments Off on Dozens of ex-lawmakers, staff landed at military firms since 2015

US unveils ‘economic onslaught’ against Iran

RT | August 24, 2026

US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has announced new sanctions against Iran, and threatened to boot any country dealing financially with Tehran out of the US dollar system, in a bid to make Iran an “economic outcast.”

The new sanctions target nearly 60 entities, individuals, and vessels in multiple jurisdictions that allegedly trade in “illicit nuclear and missile technology” with Iran, aid Iran’s “cyber operations,” and move Iranian oil, the US Treasury Department said in a statement on Monday. More than a third of the sanctioned entities and individuals – 21 – are based in China.

The Treasury also said it had identified digital assets, technology, gold, aviation and shipping as areas for potential secondary sanctions.

Speaking at a press conference later on Monday, Bessent went further, announcing the beginning of “Operation Economic Outcast,” which he described as “an economic onslaught against Iran’s financial connections around the globe.”

Bessent explained that the US would penalize any country refusing to sever its economic ties with Tehran. “Any entity that facilitates money laundering on behalf of Iran will be removed from the US dollar system,” he said, adding “the clock just started ticking.”

Iran exports goods to 147 countries, and imports from 114, according to the most recent data from the World Bank. Asked how the US intends to force three quarters of the world’s nations to cease trade with Iran, Bessent said that US President Donald Trump phoned multiple world leaders over the weekend “with specific requests to cease their interactions” with Iran, and that every country had been given “a defined timeline” to comply with his demands.

Bessent refused to share any more details, telling reporters that “we’re not going to name names,” nor was he “going to set timelines.” Pressed on whether Washington expected China – which is Iran’s largest trading partner – to abide by the sanctions regime, Bessent did not give a definitive answer.

“We find that the best way to engage with countries is through quiet diplomacy. And we are level-setting with every country to tell them our expectations. We know who they are. They know who they are,” he replied, adding “no-one is above the reach of US sanctions.”

Bessent’s threats were shrugged off in Tehran. “Americans know that no one buys their bombast,” senior Iranian negotiator Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf wrote on X after the treasury secretary’s press conference.

“The United States is not in an economic position to further restrict its relations with other countries,”he explained. “Iran’s trading partners, both in the media and through messages sent to us, have made it clear that they don’t take these statements into account anywhere.”

Mohsen Rezaei, the head of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, warned on Sunday that “not a single drop of oil will leave the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz” if the Gulf states join the US’ economic pressure campaign. If US President Donald Trump “wants to do something, we will retaliate in a seismic manner,” Rezaei added.

Last week, Trump threatened to inflict what he called “Economic D-Day” on Iran, after a 60-day window for negotiating peace with Tehran expired with no breakthrough. Trump ruled out a return to negotiations, but Pakistani Chief of Defense Forces Asim Munir arrived in Tehran on Monday in an attempt to revive the talks.

August 24, 2026 Posted by | Economics, Wars for Israel | , | Comments Off on US unveils ‘economic onslaught’ against Iran

Iran warns of strikes on US bases in Europe if nations join aggression

 Al Mayadeen | August 24, 2026

Iran will strike US bases in European countries if those nations participate in aggression against it, Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei warned on Monday.

During his weekly press briefing, Baghaei emphasized that “Iran does not accept that the aggressor sets the conditions for ending the war,” adding, “there is no justification for any country to fear Iran unless that country opens its territory to the United States for aggression against Iran.”

He stressed that “it is Iran’s right to target the source and origin of any aggressive action against the Islamic Republic.”

Baghaei also affirmed that “Iran did not start the war and was exercising its legitimate right to self-defense, and will not allow the war to end on the aggressor’s terms,” explaining that “Iran used all diplomatic tools to prevent war”.

He stated that, “we did not start the war, and we should not blame ourselves for the continuation of this situation”.

Iran did everything to pursue diplomacy, US violated agreements

Baghaei noted that “Iran did everything possible through the diplomatic path to prevent war and secure national interests and benefits. In many cases, arrangements and agreements were reached, but the US side violated all of them”.

He pointed out that “the memorandum of understanding did not last more than three weeks, after which America revoked all its provisions”.

Baghaei stressed that “Iran’s power and the cohesion of its people are the shield of the Islamic Republic”, affirming that “Iran was able to thwart all the enemy’s plans”.

Regarding the Mecca agreement, Baghaei noted that “Iran did not receive an official invitation to join the Mecca agreement, but proposals were presented to it in this regard.”

US Naval blockade considered aggressive act

Responding to reports of several million barrels of oil crossing through Hormuz daily, Baghaei said: “This is part of the enemy’s psychological warfare, and there is no such thing.” He continued: “Regarding what America calls the economic war, they used to say economic sanctions, and we used to say this is economic terrorism.”

Baghaei noted that “America uses every tool to punish Iranians simply for their insistence on their sovereignty, national independence, and dignity,” adding that, “the Iranian government is mobilizing all its capabilities to alleviate living pressures on the people”. He affirmed that “the naval blockade on Iran at the present time is in itself an aggressive act, and escalation of this situation will certainly have its own repercussions”.

Iran-Pakistan relations at their best stages

Regarding bilateral relations between Iran and Pakistan, Baghaei said they are “going through one of the best stages, and both sides are determined to expand these relations.” He added: “The visit of Oman’s Foreign Minister to Tehran has no connection to the visit of the Pakistani army chief. They coincided only in terms of timing.”

Baghaei continued: “During the visit of Oman’s Foreign Minister to Tehran, we will discuss bilateral relations and issues related to the security of the Strait of Hormuz and transit routes”. He concluded: “Iran and Afghanistan will expand their commercial dealings”.

August 24, 2026 Posted by | Wars for Israel | , , , | Comments Off on Iran warns of strikes on US bases in Europe if nations join aggression

IRGC rejects US claims, says Iran retains surveillance edge in Hormuz

Al Mayadeen| August 24, 2026

The spokesperson for Iran’s Islamic Revolution Guard Corps (IRGC), Hossein Mohebbi, dismissed US officials’ claims that Iranian radars had been targeted and that oil tankers could transit the Strait of Hormuz as “media hype”.

Mohebbi told Mehr news agency that “the IRGC’s surveillance and intelligence-gathering capabilities cannot be confined to the radars known to the enemy.”

He highlighted the surveillance, reconnaissance, and intelligence-gathering methods employed by Iran’s armed forces, saying the IRGC’s monitoring capabilities “do not rely on satellites, as the Americans believe; rather, there are other surveillance methods that the opposing side may not yet be capable of detecting”.

Mohebbi said, “If the Islamic Republic did not have a discerning eye capable of monitoring maritime movements, how could it accurately strike specific targets at sensitive points on vessels?”

He stressed that Iran maintains continuous intelligence coverage of maritime activity, saying that when a missile strikes a critical point on a vessel and disables it, this demonstrates both intelligence superiority and the ability to acquire and engage targets with precision.

‘Blinding the enemy’s eyes in the region’

He also referred to “the attacks carried out against the enemy’s surveillance and reconnaissance systems”, saying: “In reality, we have blinded the enemy’s eyes in the region and targeted its radars and electro-optical networks”.

Mohebbi rejected the assumption by Iran’s adversaries that “destroying a number of radars known to Iran means eliminating the Islamic Republic’s surveillance capabilities”, saying: “This is far from reality.”

Strike accuracy demonstrates surveillance capability

Mohebbi highlighted the vastness of the Gulf and the operational challenges of conducting maritime warfare, saying that “in this vast battlespace, even under the cover of darkness, when a missile strikes its target with precision, it becomes clear that intelligence and operational targeting capabilities underpin the operation”.

He stressed that Iran’s methods for detecting and tracking targets “are not something whose every detail the enemy can identify”, adding that “the outcome of the operations and the precision of the strikes themselves demonstrate the extent of the Islamic Republic of Iran’s intelligence coverage”.

It is worth noting that Iran has repeatedly said that US military bases and economic assets in the Gulf region have been used to launch acts of aggression against Iran, including strikes that have resulted in civilian casualties. In this framing, any Iranian action targeting such facilities is a retaliation against hostile military activity originating from or enabled by those bases.

August 24, 2026 Posted by | Militarism | , | Comments Off on IRGC rejects US claims, says Iran retains surveillance edge in Hormuz

Iran invite to join regional defense pact raises alarm in ‘Israel’

Al Mayadeen | August 24, 2026

Israeli officials and analysts have expressed alarm over Iran being invited to join a regional defense pact, warning that Tehran’s entry would fundamentally shift the balance of the alliance and undermine US standing in West Asia.

Mehdi Rahimi, the head of the Iranian parliament’s official news agency, told Al Mayadeen that Iran received an invitation to join the “Mecca Defense Agreement”, raising concerns in “Israel”, according to reports.

The Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported that the potential inclusion of Iran in the alliance has caused alarm, with analysts suggesting it would fundamentally alter the coalition’s nature.

Iran joining pact represents fundamental transformation

Ksenia Svetlova, director of the “Israel”-Middle East Relations Program at the Mitvim Institute and a researcher at the Atlantic Council, stated that Iran’s accession to the agreement, if it materializes, would represent “a fundamental transformation” in the nature of the alliance, Haaretz reported.

According to Svetlova, US President Donald Trump is “furious” because he cannot change the equation that emerged after the war.

Svetlova further stated that Iran’s accession would harm “US prestige”, adding that neither the United States, nor “Israel”, nor the United Arab Emirates, nor others would accept such a development.

Haaretz reported that Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Pakistan have repeatedly stressed that the alliance is not directed against Iran, but have referred to “Israel” in the context of framing the agreement as an aggressive and threatening regional entity that requires unified forces to confront.

Pakistan says it’s open to Iran joining Mecca Defense Pact

Previously, Pakistan stated it has no objection to Iran and Egypt joining a mutual defense agreement signed with Saudi Arabia and Turkey, the country’s ambassador to Moscow said on August 12.

Ambassador Faisal Niaz Tirmizi told Al Mayadeen that the agreement with Saudi Arabia and Turkey “is not a hostile pact directed against any country, but rather an effort to establish a regional security architecture.”

He stressed that “Pakistan welcomes the participation of other countries in the region that are committed to achieving peace and stability.” “No development can be achieved without the participation of influential regional actors,” he stressed.

Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Pakistan formalize joint defense pact in Mecca

Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Pakistan signed a joint defense agreement in Mecca on Friday, formalizing a trilateral security bloc among three Sunni Muslim-majority US allies, Reuters reported.

The pact, dubbed the Mecca Joint Defense Agreement, stipulates that an attack on any one of the three signatories will be treated as an attack on all, the countries said in a joint statement. The agreement is framed as a collective-deterrence mechanism meant to shore up regional security, though the three governments have not disclosed the specific obligations each side has taken on.

A Turkish official told Reuters the pact is purely defensive, is not aimed at any particular state, remains open to other countries in the region, and does not supersede existing bilateral or multilateral arrangements Ankara, Riyadh, or Islamabad already hold.

The deal caps roughly a year of talks first flagged by Reuters in January, when Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan said Ankara was pushing for a wider regional security platform.

August 24, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Solidarity and Activism | , , | Comments Off on Iran invite to join regional defense pact raises alarm in ‘Israel’

This Is the Reality…

Tucker Carlson Network | August 22, 2026

Mike Huckabee Is at It Again…

Tucker Carlson Network | August 21, 2026

August 23, 2026 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Video | , , , , , | Comments Off on This Is the Reality…

The World Sees What the US is Trying to do to Iran /Matt Bracken & Lt Col Daniel Davis

Daniel Davis / Deep Dive – August 21, 2026

August 23, 2026 Posted by | Video, Wars for Israel | , , | Comments Off on The World Sees What the US is Trying to do to Iran /Matt Bracken & Lt Col Daniel Davis

FDA Acting Commissioner Woodcock Admits Adverse Events After COVID-19 Vaccination

By Aaron Siri | Injecting Freedom | August 21, 2026

This one email from FDA Acting Commissioner Janet Woodcock in May 2021 epitomizes everything wrong with our government’s treatment of vaccines and the vaccine injured.

Woodcock emails Fauci and Collins (head of NIH) to inform them that “a number of people” including healthcare workers she personally knows contacted her about injuries from every one of the available Covid-19 vaccines. She admits that:

(1) these injuries would not be picked up by FDA or CDC surveillance systems;
(2) there is no money set aside to study these harms (while billions are given to pharma companies for vaccines);
(3) no one will take these injured people seriously;
(4) no one knows how to treat them;
(5) there is no effort to study this serious issue; and
(6) “the industry” will not support the necessary studies.

I also agree with her sentiment that, “if you let a problem fester, then it will come back to bite you later…” Later is here.

August 22, 2026 Posted by | Deception, Timeless or most popular | , | Comments Off on FDA Acting Commissioner Woodcock Admits Adverse Events After COVID-19 Vaccination

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »