Kiev wants Trump envoy sacked
RT | March 24, 2025
US President Donald Trump’s special envoy to the Middle East, Steve Witkoff, who has played a central role in opening negotiations on resolving the Ukraine conflict, is “spreading Russian propaganda” and should be sacked, according to a senior Ukrainian lawmaker.
The head of the Kiev’s Foreign Affairs Committee, Aleksandr Merezhko, made the remark in response to Witkoff’s interview with American journalist Tucker Carlson, during which the envoy spoke about the status of former Ukrainian territories that have joined Russia, describing the issue as “an elephant in the room” that “no one wants to talk about.”
“They’re Russian-speaking. There have been referendums where the overwhelming majority of the people have indicated that they want to be under Russian rule,” Witkoff said.
“The Russians are de facto in control of these territories. The question is: Will the world acknowledge that those are Russian territories? Can [Vladimir] Zelensky survive politically if he acknowledges this? This is the central issue in the conflict,” he added.
Merezhko strongly condemned the “disgraceful, shocking statements,” accusing the Witkoff of acting as an envoy of Russian President Vladimir Putin rather than of the Trump.
“We are talking about a representative of the president who should have professional expertise in this matter and know some basic things. obvious things. And he doesn’t know this. He spreads Russian propaganda,” the lawmaker insisted in a televised interview. Merezhko said that he wasn’t sure if “ignorance, naivety, or unprofessionalism” was behind Witkoff’s statements and called for the US official should be booted from his role.
“We clearly can’t dictate to American friends who should represent them. But this person needs to be removed from this delegation, he should not be a representative of the [US] president. Since he’s either completely unprofessional or simply repeats Putin’s narratives,” Merezhko added.
Moscow and Kiev have taken bipolar positions on the former-Ukrainian Kherson and Zaporozhye Regions and the Donbass republics of Donetsk and Lugansk, all of which officially joined Russia in autumn 2022 following a series of referendums. Kiev also formally claims Russia’s Crimea, which seceded from Ukraine in the aftermath of a violent Western-backed coup in Kiev and joined Russia in 2014, on its own.
Moscow has repeatedly signaled that its sovereignty over the territories is not negotiable, while Kiev has repeatedly pledged to seize back control of all the territories it claims as its own. The Ukrainian leadership has seemingly softened its rhetoric as of late, now insisting it will never recognize “occupation” of the territories and Russian sovereignty over them in any form.
Russia honoring energy strike truce despite Ukraine’s violations – Kremlin
RT | March 24, 2025
Russia will continue to uphold the moratorium on strikes against Ukrainian energy infrastructure, despite Kiev’s numerous violations, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov has said.
Speaking to reporters on Monday, Peskov stated that Moscow is still abiding by the partial ceasefire deal, despite Ukraine’s strikes on Russian energy facilities.
“There have been no new commands from [Russian President Vladimir Putin]. Our armed forces are following all instructions from the commander-in-chief,” he said.
The suspension of strikes was agreed to following a phone call last week between Putin and his US counterpart, Donald Trump, during which the two discussed a potential 30-day ceasefire in the Ukraine conflict.
While Russia did not agree to a full truce, citing the need for a monitoring mechanism and for Kiev to cease its rearmament and mobilization, Putin approved a month-long pause on strikes against energy facilities. Ukraine also signed on to the agreement.
Moscow, however, accused Kiev of violating the deal almost immediately. Russian officials said Ukrainian forces destroyed a gas metering station while retreating from the town of Sudzha in Kursk Region and struck an oil depot in Russia’s Krasnodar Region. Additionally, on Monday night, an armed Ukrainian drone was shot down near an oil pumping station in the same area. The targeted facility is managed by the Caspian Pipeline Consortium, which is co-owned by American investors.
Addressing the incidents, Peskov stated: “We are monitoring the situation very closely. Our American counterparts also have the opportunity to observe and draw appropriate conclusions.”
On Saturday, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova warned that if “the Kiev regime continues this destructive course,” Russia “reserves the right to retaliate, including symmetrically.”
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.
A new vision for US global power under Trump
By Batool Subeiti | Al Mayadeen | March 23, 2025
Trump’s approach to global affairs diverges sharply from the American establishment’s traditional strategy. Trump does not see America as a “police state.” He is sceptical of NATO, does not support war with Russia, and believes the US military presence in West Asia primarily serves to protect Arab allies. In his view, they should bear the financial burden of that protection.
The American establishment, represented by institutions like the Pentagon and the White House, follows a long-term strategic vision. It maintains hundreds of military bases worldwide and pursues a structured political strategy across various regions.
Trump, by contrast, envisions American leadership within a multipolar world order. He is less concerned with imposing the American system on other nations and more focused on fostering economic alliances that benefit the US. He also seeks to counter the rise of BRICS and prevent alternative economic blocs from challenging the dollar’s dominance. Rather than waging ideological battles, his strategy revolves around economic leverage.
A key example of establishment influence has been USAID, which has historically functioned as a covert tool for advancing American unipolarity. By using soft power tactics, it has helped destabilize nations through coups and colour revolutions. However, under Trump, funding for such initiatives has been slashed, allowing the US to save billions. His approach is more direct—rather than relying on NGOs to influence societies, he prefers sanctions as a means of coercion. This shift weakens American influence at the grassroots level, creating a vacuum that local movements and other powers can exploit.
Trump aims to strengthen the American economy through relative stability rather than confrontation. He opposes prolonged war with Russia, favouring investment over sanctions. Rather than spending $350 billion on Ukraine, he sees greater economic potential in working with Russia, which he does not view as a direct economic competitor. His broader goal is to retract costly foreign commitments and consolidate American economic dominance, using economic leverage—such as tariffs and sanctions—to maintain control. This was evident in his approach to Zelensky, where he set clear conditions for support.
This stance starkly contrasts with that of Europe, which remains deeply hostile toward Russia and relies on US backing to counter it. Trump’s push for increased tariffs on European imports will likely reduce demand for European goods in the US, stimulating domestic manufacturing and bolstering the dollar. His retreat from NATO further exposes contradictions within the alliance, creating strategic openings that others may exploit.
Trump operates like a political tsunami. In Gaza, he has positioned himself as the real power behind the war, stopping it on his terms. Even his controversial depopulation proposal was more of a bargaining tool than a concrete plan. He sees West Asia as secondary to regions like Mexico, Panama, or Greenland. When asked about Iran’s strength, he acknowledges Iran is very strong—suggesting he prefers to focus on nuclear containment rather than military confrontation, much to Netanyahu’s frustration.
Trump also has a tendency towards withdrawal when he sees American involvement as a financial drain. While “Israel” has expanded its influence in Syria, if its actions provoke widespread resistance, and it becomes clear that “Israel” is a source of ongoing conflict, Trump may reconsider US support.
In contrast to the deep state’s approach—where a weakening “Israel” prompts the search for regional substitutes—Trump’s stance is more transactional. If there is no significant opposition, he will stamp “Israel’s” territorial gains. But if the costs outweigh the benefits, he is willing to incrementally remove support from the occupation entity.
US announcement of sixth-gen F-47 fighter draws analyses from Chinese expert

Graphical rendering shows the Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) Platform, the F-47. Photo: VCG
By Liu Xuanzun and Liang Rui | Global Times | March 23, 2025
The US’ recent announcement of the F-47 fighter jet has drawn intensive analyses from Chinese military affairs experts and observers, who acknowledged the aircraft being a real sixth-generation fighter jet for featuring typical characteristics such as a tailless design, but they also raised questions over its potentially limited stealth capability, relatively small size, and the US’ selection of Boeing to build the warplane.
The Pentagon has awarded the contract for the US Air Force’s Next Generation Air Dominance future fighter jet, known as NGAD, to Boeing, US President Donald Trump announced Friday, US news outlet Defense News reported on Saturday.
The sixth-generation fighter, which will replace the F-22 Raptor, will be designated the F-47, Trump said. It will have “state-of-the-art stealth technologies [making it] virtually unseeable,” and will fly alongside multiple autonomous drone wingmen, known as collaborative combat aircraft, Defense News reported.
After reviewing the artist renderings of the F-47 released by the US Air Force, Zhang Xuefeng, a Chinese military affairs expert, told the Global Times on Sunday that the F-47’s appearance conforms to the general development trend of the sixth-generation fighter jet concept. For example, it does not feature any vertical tails, which is an attempt to further improve its stealth capability in all directions. It has a flat nose and a lifting-body fuselage. These are all important characteristics of a sixth-generation fighter jet.
Zhang added that manned-unmanned teaming is a core sixth-generation feature, and one the F-47 includes.
However, a pair of canards can be observed in front of the F-47’s main wings, and this will more or less impact the aircraft’s stealth, Zhang noted. Reiterating that an important trend for sixth-generation fighter jets is to remove vertical tails and use a supersonic flying wing configuration to boost stealth, Zhang said that new mechanisms are needed to act in the place of vertical tails to control the aircraft, such as movable wingtip. But the F-47 opted to use canards, a relatively old technology often found on previous generations of aircraft. He suggested Boeing may lack the tech base to develop new control methods and relies on outdated design choices.
In December 2024, videos and photos emerged on social media allegedly showing two types aircraft with new designs have conducted test flights in China. Despite no official announcements, many called them China’s “sixth-generation fighter jets.” Both of them appear to have removed vertical tails and also do not have canards. One of them, resembling a ginkgo leaf in appearance, looked far larger than its J-20 escort.
Wang Ya’nan, chief editor of Beijing-based Aerospace Knowledge magazine, told the Global Times on Sunday that comparing with the size of the canopy and the front landing gear, it can be analyzed that the overall size of the F-47 is not likely much larger than the F-22. It means that the F-47 is still a tactical aircraft, rather than a large, multipurpose aerial platform capable of conducting campaign-scale missions like the “ginkgo leaf” aircraft.
Defense News, citing Air Force Chief Gen. Allvin, claimed that experimental versions of the NGAD have been flying for the last five years.
But Wang noted that there is no proof of this. Even the pictures depicting the F-47 are artists renderings rather than photos.
Wang also noted that Boeing has not won a major fighter jet program for decades. Its F-15 and F/A-18 fighter jets are from McDonnell Douglas which was merged into Boeing, and Boeing’s own X-32 fighter jet lost to the F-35 from Lockheed Martin in bidding. Boeing’s other projects, such as the 737 MAX airliner and KC-46 tanker aircraft also encountered many issues recently. “Having a company like this to lead a sixth-generation program is actually very risky,” he said.
In addition to US’ NGAD program, other countries are also developing sixth-generation fighter jets. France, Germany and Spain are in the Future Combat Air System program to develop a sixth-generation fighter jet, while the UK, Italy and Japan have a sixth-generation Global Combat Air Programme fighter project, according to Defense News. Russia’s sixth-generation efforts have also surfaced in TASS reports.
Wang said the US is moving fastest with the F-47, while other nations lag. With China’s own jets already spotted in the sky, the outside world is now seeing China and the US in advanced stages of sixth-generation fighter jet development.
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.
Situation in Serbia Unaffected by USAID Funding Cuts Yet – Deputy Prime Minister
Sputnik – 23.03.2025
BELGRADE – The cuts in USAID funding have not yet affected the situation in Serbia, the money has already been allocated and is being spent, Serbian Deputy Prime Minister Aleksandar Vulin told Sputnik.
Anti-government protests by students and the opposition have been taking place in Serbia since November 2024. They were triggered by the death of 15 people when a concrete canopy collapsed at the railway station in Novi Sad on November 1. The country’s leadership calls on students and opposition forces to engage in dialogue, but this call remains unanswered. The authorities believe that the goal of the protesters is to overthrow the government and the president, and that Western-funded media and organizations are behind their actions.
“The result [of USAID cuts] will be in the long term. In the short term, there is none, because this money has already been allocated and distributed, and they are doing what they were paid for,” Vulin said.
Earlier, he said that since the beginning of 2025 alone, USAID had transferred over $40 million to Serbia.
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio previously said that the United States was officially closing 83% of USAID programs, adding that they spent tens of billions of dollars on purposes that do not meet US interests.
Scorch Marks in the Sand

Yemeni Warrior Rejoicing over a Slain MQ-9 Reaper
By William Schryver – imetatronink – March 22, 2025
Javelin, Stinger, M-777 howitzer, HIMARS, Excalibur, Switchblade, all manner of electronic warfare gizmos and counter-battery radars, Bradley IFVs, Stryker, Leopard, Challenger, Abrams, Patriot, JDAMs, HARMS, Storm Shadow, ATACMS … I’m sure I’m forgetting some.
Oh, yeah … remember in early 2022 when the unveiling of the Bayraktar strike drones was hailed with great fanfare? They were predicted to be the bane of the Russian army. Instead, it was a major embarrassment for the Turks.

Turkish Bayraktar TB2 Surveillance and Attack Drone
That said, over the past year or so, those “savage barbarians” down in Yemen have shot-down a baker’s dozen of the once-vaunted US MQ-9 Reaper drones – supposedly vastly superior to the Bayraktar TB2.

US MQ-9 Reaper Surveillance and Attack Drone
In any case, all of these things represent top-shelf front-line US/NATO war stuff that has been objectively proven inferior in the crucible of protracted high-intensity warfare. Many are simply ill-suited for the current state-of-play in the military realm, as it has been revealed over the course of the war in Ukraine.
Before this war began, the almost-universal belief was that US/NATO weaponry and equipment were far and away superior to anything the Russians could put on the battlefield.
That unfounded faith in the unrivaled supremacy of western arms has now been shattered — although we already see the think-tank apologists fashioning their strained rationalizations.
Nevertheless, when one examines in aggregate the implements of war the US/NATO have provided to Ukraine, the overwhelming majority consists of the very stuff every military in NATO would field in a war against Russia, or anyone else, for that matter.
Here is a sobering truth: if the Armed Forces of Ukraine could make one wish, it would be to respawn as the army and abundant quantities of effective and durable Soviet equipment they had in February 2022. That was, all things considered, the strongest army they would ever have. And it was, in great measure, squandered on the altar of a misguided commitment to NATO field doctrines that repeatedly proved misconceived and ill-adaptive to the war that actually ensued, as well as the war as it has subsequently evolved.
So, in the case of the Ukraine War, we see attested two now-indisputable facts:
1) US/NATO weaponry and equipment is FAR LESS FEARSOME than was previously believed by the supposed “military experts” in the world. It has either failed abysmally or vastly underperformed in virtually every case.
2) US/NATO war doctrine has been demonstrated to be something quite a bit less than the greatest expression of the martial arts since Napoleon at the Battle of Austerlitz. The disastrous NATO/AFU “counteroffensive” in Zaporozhye in summer 2023 and the catastrophic blunder of the Kursk Kamikaze Incursion in summer 2024 have laid waste to the mythology of US/NATO military prowess.

Napoleon at Austerlitz Accepting the Surrender of Francis II
Now, here in the early spring of 2025, we see the United States, with Donald Trump again at the helm, trying to soothe the sting and obfuscate the reality of the resounding defeat its strategic designs and battlefield arms have suffered against Russia.
And, after weighing all options and considerations in the balance, the Masters of Declining Empire have decided beating up on Iran is the right medicine for what ails them.
I mean, after all, the Russians never had to face them, and the Iranians certainly cannot pose a credible threat to our decades-old F-15s, F-16s, F/A-18s, F-22s, F-35s, B-52s, B-1s, B-2s, Tomahawks, etc., not to mention the almighty US Navy.
Everybody KNOWS this to be true. Right?
And even though the Iranians have already proven to be able to defeat all manner of US and Israeli air defenses with their upper-tiers of ballistic missiles … well, if we just have Pete Hegseth give them a proper pep-talk, those interceptors that failed during the reign of the imbecile Joe Biden will strike down every single Muslim Missile they see. American air defense interceptors will be made great again. Hail to the Chief!
As for the Iranian air defenses … well, everyone also knows the Israelis already destroyed them. Right? They told us all about it – how the heroic Israeli F-35s and F-15s stormed across the Tigris into the heart of Iran and blew to smithereens all those S-300s and missile factories. They even showed pictures of scorch marks in the sand to prove it.
Anyway, the point is that America needs to go to war again in an attempt to erase the stain of having lost to the Russians, just as going to war against the Russians was meant to erase the stain of having lost to the Afghanis, just as going to war against Iraq and Afghanistan was meant to erase the stain of having lost to the Vietnamese. And … well, you know the drill by now.
You should also know what they say about the best laid plans of mice and men. Nothing ever goes as planned. And I strongly suspect the next war of American redemption will not be a reversal of the prevailing trend.
How a war with Iran (for Israel) could crash the US economy
By Shivan Mahendrarajah | The Cradle | March 21, 2025
The “winds of war” are blowing toward Iran. This is the war for which Israeli donors Sheldon and Miriam Adelson, along with pro-Israel organizations such as AIPAC and the ADL, paid US President Donald Trump hundreds of millions of dollars over two election cycles.
But it’s not only the Israeli lobby banging the war drums; American Evangelicals – especially groups like “Christians United for Israel” – also support war, believing it will “save Israel” from the “Iranian menace.” Evangelical membership in the 119th Congress (2025–27) is high. War with Iran is not (yet) popular in the US, but – just as with Iraq – consent will be manufactured by Washington elites and the media.
Trump’s outreach to Russian President Vladimir Putin to resolve the Ukraine war partly aims to shift the Pentagon’s attention back to West Asia. He assumes that an early 2025 war with Iran will “save Israel” and secure his legacy, letting him focus on “America First” for the rest of his term.
But war with Iran could also backfire disastrously, sink his presidency, and derail the ambitions of 2028 Republican hopefuls like Marco Rubio and J.D. Vance. For starters, should the military campaign encounter any unforeseen backlash – which is highly likely, and the reason the Pentagon has assiduously avoided direct confrontation with Iran – the Democratic Party could retake both chambers of Congress after a US stock market crash and recession triggered by the war.
Iran’s military responses
Iranian leaders have vowed “devastating” retaliation for any attack on their soil. This would likely involve missile strikes against Israeli and US military targets – and possibly infrastructure and economic targets within the occupation state. If Israel uses tactical nuclear weapons against Iran’s nuclear facilities, Tehran will escalate further.
Whether or not nukes are used, war would shock the global economy, send oil prices soaring, and halt maritime traffic through the Strait of Hormuz. The greatest impact will fall on countries most dependent on West Asian oil.
The US economy may be less affected in the short term. Its stock markets, already down 10 percent since Trump’s return to the White House, would decline further – but Trump is gambling that households will not feel the pain. But if the Islamic Republic launches economic warfare that “brings the war home,” political dynamics will change.
Economic warfare
Most Americans are detached from the notion and consequences of war because, since the Civil War, US wars have been fought far from its borders. Even during the World Wars, though American families faced personal loss, the nation did not endure widespread suffering – unlike Britain, which imposed food rationing from 1939 to 1954.
The “Global War on Terror” impacted some communities, but not the country. US troops often joked in Iraq: “We’re at war; America’s at the mall.” Americans kept spending and enjoying life, while Iraqis and US occupation soldiers endured the brutal costs.
Iranian leadership understands this disconnect. The US stock market is a tempting target. In 1929, at the start of the Great Depression, just 2.5 percent of Americans owned stock. Today, about 61 percent of US adults – roughly 160 million people – own shares through private accounts, pension schemes, or retirement plans.
Factoring in children in such households, roughly 200 million Americans are exposed to market fluctuations. Trillions more dollars are invested by corporations, universities, and foreign institutions. The exposure is deep.
The US economy is fragile. Mark Zandi, Moody’s chief economist, warned that the risk of recession is “uncomfortably high and rising.” On 19 March, Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell kept interest rates steady, citing slowing consumer spending and growing uncertainty. Trump, fearing economic fallout, raged on Truth Social over the Fed’s refusal to cut rates. He announced retaliatory tariffs set to take effect on 2 April.
Household debt is rising – $18.04 trillion as of Q4 2024 – with increasing defaults on auto loans and credit cards. Americans, like the federal government, spend on credit. Investors borrow against their portfolios with margin loans. If stock values fall, forced selloffs to cover debts could intensify market collapse. “Margin calls” – demands for loan repayments – played a greater role in the ensuing economic turmoil than the 13 percent market drop on 28 October 1929.
The US economy is already strained, and consumers are over-leveraged. A large external shock could push it into a deep recession. Stock markets would plunge, wiping out pension savings and private wealth.
How far markets fall would depend on the force of Iran’s blow. The current 10 percent drop has already hurt. A deeper decline – say, 25 to 50 percent – would cripple the economy, spark layoffs and bankruptcies, and tighten credit. That would suppress consumer spending and crash the housing market, as in 2008.
Tehran’s targets
As Iranian leaders have often repeated, “If Iran cannot sell oil, no one will.” If US or Israeli forces strike Iranian tankers or infrastructure, Tehran is likely to target US economic interests and the oil sectors of any Persian Gulf Arab state that supports the attacks by allowing fighter jets, drones, or missiles to launch from their territories.
The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) may choose to strike Bahrain, which is an obvious military target since it hosts the US Naval Forces Central Command. In addition to military sites, Iran could target the Bahrain Petroleum Company’s refinery, which processes 270,000 barrels per day, along with its marine terminal and oil storage facilities.
The oil farm holds 14 million barrels – ample fuel for a dramatic strike. Iran could also destroy the King Fahd Causeway connecting Bahrain to Saudi Arabia to prevent Riyadh from sending ground troops to suppress unrest among Bahrain’s majority Shia population, as it did during the 2011 uprising.
In Iraq, too, US military bases will almost certainly come under fire. Beyond that, Iran-aligned factions within the Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF) may attempt to capture the 2,500 US troops still stationed there – not to kill them, but to take them as hostages.
Living captives would be far more valuable, creating a nightmare scenario for Trump and serving as a sharp reminder to Americans – who often forget the wars they once supported – that US troops remain in Iraq more than two decades after the 2003 invasion. These POWs would likely be scattered across the country, making coordinated rescue missions difficult and turning them into bargaining chips in any future negotiations.
Jordan, having allowed Israeli overflights last year in October during Iran’s retaliatory strikes and before that in April, is likely to do so again and could face significant retaliation. In addition to the Zarqa oil refinery, Iranian forces might strike political, military, and intelligence targets. Such attacks would certainly provoke unrest among Jordan’s population, the majority of whom are of Palestinian descent and already harbor grievances against their leadership for its collusion with Tel Aviv.
The UAE, if complicit in the attacks, could face military strikes on its energy infrastructure and power plants, as it experienced during its war with Yemen. The Emirates is particularly vulnerable due to its demographic makeup – about 88 percent of its population consists of foreign workers. If those workers flee following targeted attacks, the country’s economy would be brought to its knees.
Qatar and Oman are likely to be treated differently. Muscat, with its long-standing neutral foreign policy in the region, has maintained warm relations with Iran, and will not likely participate in a US military aggression. Doha also enjoys relatively good relations with Tehran, though it hosts the US Central Command’s (CENTCOM) Al-Udeid Air Base and worked to thwart Iranian interests in Syria. Iran might strike CENTCOM’s headquarters in West Asia, but is unlikely to target other Qatari assets.
Saudi Arabia presents a more complex scenario. Although both Russia and China have encouraged reconciliation between Iran and Saudi Arabia, the kingdom may not remain on the sidelines. If it does participate in hostilities, it would become a high-priority target.
Even if Riyadh stays neutral, Iran might still strike its East–West oil pipeline, which terminates at the port of Yanbu. That pipeline – built in 1982 to bypass the Persian Gulf – delivers over three million barrels per day to Europe.
Yanbu’s port, refinery, and export terminals, some of which are operated in partnership with western firms, would be natural targets. A simultaneous closure of the Strait of Hormuz and disruption of Red Sea traffic would block the export of roughly five million barrels per day. While former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter predicted oil prices could surge to $120 per barrel, Iran might be capable of pushing them as high as $200.
China, when retaliating against Trump’s tariffs, acted strategically. It imports just 7 percent of its pork from the US, but most pork producers are in Republican “red states.” Targeting that sector hurt Trump’s base directly.
While spiking oil prices and global economic turmoil would harm Iran’s allies and the Global South, Iran’s adversaries in the US, UK, Israel, and EU stand to lose the most. If Iran wages a smart economic war, even Evangelicals may start caring more about their grocery bills than hastening the reconstruction of the “Third Temple” and other end-times prophecies.
Geography

The Middle East
By William Schryver – imetatronink – March 21, 2025
So the US is sending Carrier Strike Group One (CVN-70 USS Carl Vinson) to the Middle East, leaving CSG-5 (CVN-73 USS George Washington) to “hold the fort” in the western Pacific from the semi-safe environs of its quasi-permanent berth in Yokosuka, Japan.
All the Washington does is sail back and forth between San Diego and Yokosuka every so often to give the impression it’s doing something meaningful. Otherwise I’ve seen no indication for several years that it is anything more than a training and parade vessel.
In any case, the Vinson is headed to the Arabian Sea, and perhaps points beyond. (That remains to be seen.)
Meanwhile the deployment of CSG-8 (CVN-75 USS Trembling Puppy) has been extended, even as it remains bottled up in the northern reaches of the Red Sea, launching air strikes on Yemen from ~1000 km away, with USAF refueling tankers at the ready as needed.
The Yemeni have launched a few modest packages of antiquated drones and antiship cruise missiles in the general direction of the Trembling Puppy – all of which have been relatively easy pickings for the cruiser and destroyers and combat air patrol.
But, keep in mind, even though these old and slow Yemeni drones and missiles have little chance of scoring a hit from 1000 km away, the carrier strike group ships and planes still have to shoot at every one of them!
So every Yemeni strike package of a couple dozen missiles will deplete CSG-8’s munitions magazines by AT LEAST a corresponding number of air defense missiles, and quite possibly TWICE as many, according to standard practice of firing two interceptors at each threat.
CSG-8’s magazine depth has already been substantially depleted over the course of the past two weeks — and remember, the US Navy cannot replenish its vertical launch systems at sea.
And, of course, if military operations against Iran are the ultimate objective, then at some point the Trembling Puppy and its entourage are going to have to leave the cozy waters between Jeddah and the Gulf of Suez, and run the gauntlet of the Gate of Lamentation (Bab el-Mandeb).

The Gate of Lamentation (Bab el-Mandeb)
That’s when things could get more interesting. Because it’s a pretty tight squeeze to pass through. A big deep-draft aircraft carrier can’t just run at full speed, zig-zagging back and forth. It has to stick to the navigable channel.

Navigable Shipping Channels in the Bab el-Mandeb
In the relatively open waters north of Jeddah, there is quite a bit of room for maneuver. But in the straits, you’re restricted to a narrow band — and most significantly, potential Yemeni missile launching sites are only ~200 km away. A more substantial strike package of 50 or so drones, antiship cruise missiles, antiship ballistic missiles, and fast boat and surface drone attacks will get there a whole lot faster, and with a much better chance of actually hitting something.
So, even though CSG-8’s odds of passing through unscathed still probably remain pretty good, there is unquestionably a considerably elevated risk compared to hiding out at the mouth of the Gulf of Suez.
But let’s suppose they sail right through the Bab el-Mandeb with minimal difficulties … then what? You join up with CSG-1 in the Arabian Sea and attempt long-distance strikes into southern Iran — strikes that would still require air-refueling to have any meaningful reach?
Because you sure as hell aren’t going to sail a couple carrier strike groups into the Persian Gulf. And anyone who believes otherwise is drowning in delusion. I mean, just look at the damn map! The Iranians have potent fire control over the passage from the Gulf of Oman, through the Strait of Hormuz, and throughout the entire Persian Gulf.

Strait of Hormuz / Persian Gulf
So I ask, in all seriousness, what exactly are two US Navy carrier strike groups going to do in the context of a no-holds-barred war against Iran?
To me, the entire concept screams of hubris running blindly into catastrophe.
If the US is foolish enough to start a big war against Iran, then 2025 is likely to demonstrate yet again that, combined with firepower, geography is the indomitable god of war.
