“To date, no vessel belonging to the enemy or its partners has been granted permission to pass,” referring to the United States, Israel, and their allies. Ships wanting passage through the Strait of Hormuz are currently required to use “the flag state of the vessel to establish contact with Tehran,” the official declared.

The Iranian authorities have established a “secure route” through the strait, the official said. “Given the insecurity caused by American aggression across various parts of the Persian Gulf, this corridor remains the only viable path for the transport of goods and products.”

He also urged the international media “to ignore the disinformation campaigns by the United States-Israeli side and [US President Donald] Trump personally.”

One of Iran’s conditions for a ceasefire is sovereignty over the Strait of Hormuz, which is likely to upset the U.S., which is looking for control over more oil.

Iran Wants Sovereignty Over The Strait Of Hormuz

Trump has already threatened to take Iran’s oil and isn’t going to take kindly to being cut off from the vital waterway due to its warmongering.

Trump Threatens to Take Tehran’s Oil as Iran Says U.S. Proposal Is “Unrealistic”

“Iranian regulation and control over the Strait continues and will persist,” the Iranian official told RT.

In an address to the nation on Thursday, Trump suggested that countries that depend on oil shipments through the Strait of Hormuz should “build up some delayed courage… and just take it.” He added that the waterway could “open up naturally” after the war ends, without providing details. –RT

Unless the U.S. wants to expand this war and actively take the Strait, it does look like Iran has the upper hand. It can approve or deny ships it wants, and with the new “regime” in place to do so, the country could rake in $100 billion a year.

Last Saturday, the third so-called “No Kings” protest took place in cities across the US. Left-leaning protestors again took to the streets to show everyone how much they oppose Trump.

Going all the way back to 2017, the center-left and progressive opposition to Trump has always been, at best, highly flawed. Because it has rested on the idea that he represents a sharp and unique departure from the governmental status quo. Trump is characterized as a wannabe dictator corrupting what had been a sound democratic system that, while not perfect, was largely mobilizing the federal government to benefit the American people.

That was never accurate. The American political system is not, and has never been, designed even with the intention of benefiting the American people. Its purpose, from the beginning, has been to concentrate an ever-increasing amount of power in DC and then, using that power, to transfer as much of the public’s wealth as possible into the pockets of government officials and their well-connected friends.

The real problem with Trump has always been that he is not enough of a meaningful departure from this terrible status quo. The reason the political establishment has been so anxious to get rid of him, despite his failure to meaningfully change the system, is that his bombastic style, occasional moments of honesty, and lack of concern about charging ahead with policies the rest of the political class find imprudent threatens to give away the game.

So Trump’s center-left critics, like those who show up to these mass protests, have it backward. What’s made the Trump presidency unique is not all the supposed changes he’s made to our system but how his rhetoric and behavior have made it a lot harder for our elites to hide how the system actually works.

That said, the narrative that No Kings pushes has, on its face, become a lot more believable after Trump unilaterally launched an aggressive war with Iran against the wishes of the majority of the population. A war that has quickly thrown the global economy into disarray, while bringing a serious risk of deadly energy and food shortages in the coming months, and a rising civilian death toll.

As violence grips the region, thousands of pounds of bombs fall across Iran, nightly missile barrages rain down on Israel, explosive drones strike popular luxury hotels in neighboring Gulf countries, and a major supply shock slams important global commodities like oil, fertilizer, and helium it is remarkable to remember that one man had the power to kick this all off.

But to call this power king-like is to greatly understate the problem. Our problem is not with a rogue president acting like a king but with the presidency itself. Or, more specifically, with a massive, self-amplifying executive branch that makes deranged presidents far more dangerous than an actual, literal king could ever be.

People like to imagine kings as these old, bearded men who get to lounge around on a throne all day, possessing the power to command anyone to do anything for any reason. That kind of unlimited, unquestioned, absolute power works well for fiction, but the power of real kings was far more limited.

That is largely because, for most of human history, power wasn’t concentrated exclusively in the hands of the crown but was spread across multiple social classes of elites that would compete with and check each other. This social power wasn’t always spread equally, but it was certainly not monopolized in the way we see with modern states.

That said, in Europe, in the centuries after the fall of the Roman Empire—the period we usually picture when we think of kings—power was highly dispersed between the crown, the nobility, the merchants, and the Church. The meritocratic and competitive environment this created within the Western elite was one of the main reasons the West grew so dominant compared to the rest of the world. It also greatly constrained what kings could do or get away with.

Another major constraint, especially when it came to waging wars, was the fact that the material cost of starting some big new project like a war fell directly on the king himself. If a king wanted to start a military campaign, it was up to him to first gather the men, resources, and money necessary to see it through.

Kings obviously had more power to collect or seize these resources than your average merchant or noble. But they still had to either have everything they needed in their possession before they started or had to convince some external benefactor that the expedition was just and winnable enough to secure loans for that specific campaign. That was a major constraint. It was not unusual for kings to be forced to abandon military campaigns because they simply ran out of money.

But, over the past few hundred years—and especially in the last eight or so decades—those constraints have largely gone away.

That began with the rise of the modern state. Over time, the power that had been spread across multiple distinct elite social classes began to get concentrated in a single class that took on the monopolistic characteristics we now associate with modern states.

There’s no single event that alone marks that transformation—although the Thirty Years’ War and World War I get close. But the sharp difference we see between Western political institutions in the Middle Ages and today reveals how dramatic a transformation it was and demonstrates that the political entity that Rothbard was writing about in “Anatomy of the State” is, in a literal sense, a relatively recent historical phenomenon.

In an American context, the United States was, of course, founded as a union of thirteen separate countries. It was only after a war was fought to prevent several of those countries from leaving the union that the US became the single large state we know today—with provinces that we, confusingly, call states.

But the founders also clearly envisioned the US would primarily be run by the legislature. That can be seen in the space they devoted to Congress in the Constitution compared to the other two branches. But that also did not last.

Over time, power became concentrated primarily in the executive branch. That began with civil service reforms of the late 1800s, which made it much harder for elected officials to fire and replace the unelected bureaucrats who made up the early executive agencies. Then, that so-called administrative state exploded in size as the world grew more bureaucratic during and between the world wars. And in the decades since, as the federal government’s many interventions at home and abroad led to easily predictable bad consequences, those issues were used to justify expanding the federal bureaucracy even more.

But perhaps the most important factor in the growth and ascension of the administrative state comes from one often-neglected corner of it—the Federal Reserve.

From its founding in 1913, the government-backed banking cartel known as the Federal Reserve system engineered a slow but deliberate government takeover of money. The government used the Fed’s power over the banking system to transform the dollar from a currency defined as a specific weight of gold into a fiat money whose value is determined and controlled by government officials.

That transformation—or better, corruption—of the dollar gave the federal government the essentially unchecked power to fund its projects with newly-printed currency. It decoupled government expenditures from revenues and, in doing so, effectively removed the monetary constraint that had been the bane of so many supposedly “absolutist” kings during the Middle Ages.

That is how we’ve arrived at our current situation where the executive branch is made up of over three million permanent government officials, administering larger, and more intrusive state projects than the monarchs of the past could have even dreamed of.

It’s important to understand that this massive, largely faceless bureaucracy is, in fact, where the bulk of federal power is concentrated in our current political system. Although on paper the president is the leader of all these departments and agencies making up the executive branch, modern American presidents are, in actuality, merely figureheads—or, as Paul Gotfried has called them, the “photogenic front men for a managerial dictatorship.”

Presidential candidates will be deemed acceptable by the political establishment, and serving presidents will be permitted to remain in office with little to no trouble if they obediently serve the interests of the administrative state. But, as recent history has shown, if a president tries to do anything that meaningfully threatens the permanent bureaucracy, they’ll find themselves either constrained by recent, establishment-protecting legal precedents or quietly blocked by the faceless bureaucrats who actually control how government programs are carried out.

The one major exception to this is foreign policy.

As Commander-in-Chief, the president’s total control over the military is enshrined in the Constitution. And, since Congress has effectively abdicated its role in declaring wars since WWII, the president is now in complete control of when and where the country goes to war.

And so it is with war that presidents are able to unilaterally exert their will on the world and, in doing so, act—as many see it—like a king. But presidents are not constrained like the kings of the past were.

The American military itself is far larger and more powerful than any army a king could have realistically raised. And it’s bolstered by its adjacent agencies in the massive federal bureaucracy, such as the “intelligence community,” the State Department, Homeland Security, and more.

The president doesn’t need to recruit or call up this enormous war-making apparatus. It’s ready and available to him the second he’s sworn into office. And all of this—the soldiers, weapons, spies, diplomats, staffers, and the wars themselves—all of this can only exist at these current colossal levels because of the Federal Reserve.

Unlike the kings in history, modern American presidents do not have to worry about how to pay for their wars. The central bank helps provide the funds and then quietly spreads the cost around to the rest of the American people. Modern wars are significantly more expensive than any that came before, but the cost no longer falls directly on those launching them.

And so it was the unique characteristics of the modern American executive branch that gave Trump the power to single-handedly push the Middle East into major regional war, and the wider world to the brink of an economic catastrophe.

In other words, the president is no king. He is far more dangerous.

Neooncovac, is the first domestically developed personalized mRNA-based cancer vaccine.

First Test Batches of Russia’s AI-assisted Cancer Vaccine Have Been Created

According to Doolly, his therapeutic vaccine, created using the patient’s unique tumor-specific mutations and molecular-genetic characteristics, works as an individualized anti-tumor treatment by encoding neoantigens into mRNA delivered via lipid nanoparticles. It trains the immune system to mount a targeted T-cell response against cancer cells while aiming to minimize harm to healthy tissue.

Neooncovac is authorized for adult patients with inoperable or metastatic cutaneous melanoma, often alongside immunotherapy.

Other countries have been looking into using artificial intelligence in order to create and test cancer vaccines.

UK Will Be The First to Trial BioNTech’s mRNA Cancer “Vaccines.”

mRNA “Vaccines” Facing Backlash?

Personalized cancer vaccines differ fundamentally from conventional preventive vaccines. They serve as therapeutic vaccines designed to treat existing disease by harnessing the patient’s immune system. The approach relies on identifying neoantigens—unique proteins generated by tumor-specific mutations present only in cancer cells. –Doolly

After the injection, the mRNA in the vaccine instructs the patient’s cells to produce neoantigens, then presents them to the immune system. This stimulates a targeted T-cell response and broader immune response, training the body to recognize and eliminate cancer cells bearing the same mutations. Because the vaccine focuses on patient-specific alterations, it aims to minimize effects on healthy tissue while potentially creating long-term immune memory against recurrence.

Russian researchers built on expertise gained from prior mRNA work, including platforms developed during the COVID-19 response.

Who Is At Fault When Americans Distrust COVID “Vaccines?” Russia, Of Course!

Many still don’t trust mRNA vaccines after the rushed COVID-19 injections were all but forced on the public. Perhaps if the science goes in a more favorable direction, people will start to actually trust thsoe who are right now, only making money off of ailments and sicknesses.

Summary

• Trump declares ‘core strategic objectives met’, threatens 2-3 more weeks of bombing, no mention of ceasefire
• Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian has released an open letter to the American people, questioning whether Washington is truly putting “America First” or merely acting as a “proxy for Israel” willing to fight “to the last American soldier.”
• Air defenses have been activated in Dubai, taking out 5 ballistic missiles and 35 drones launched from Iran
• Iran’s new Ayatollah tweets, “I emphatically declare that the consistent policy of the Islamic Republic of Iran, following on the path of Imam Khomeini and the martyred Leader, is to continue supporting the Resistance against the Zionist-US enemy.”
• “Not true”: Iran rejects Trump’s claim that the “new regime president” asked for a ceasefire (which has been Pezeshkian since 2024)
• UAE mulls becoming first Gulf country to directly join US-Israeli war against Iran, lobbies for firm UNSC security resolution.
• Trump to Reuters: will be “out of Iran pretty quickly” and could return for “spot hits” if needed. Also says he’s open to exiting ‘paper tiger’ NATO after Iran war is over, angry over lack of help in Hormuz crisis.
• An oil tanker leased to QatarEnergy was struck by an Iranian cruise missile in Qatari waters on Wednesday.
• IRGC has newly vowed to keep attacking with “full intensity and power” – suggesting this is far from over, as ceasefire talks remain theater lacking in much substance. Ayatollah praises Hezbollah in written statement.

Oil Spikes As Trump Vows To Hit Iran “Extremely Hard Over Next 2-3 Weeks”, Threatens To Send It “Back To The Stone Ages”

After 48 hours of messaging triumphalism about US achievements, escalatory warnings tied to the Strait and energy targets, frustration with allies, and signals of de-escalation with a shortened timeline for reduced US involvement… President Trump addressed the nation tonight about the war in Iran.

Trump began by stating that the US is targeting the world’s number 1 State-Sponsor of terror – Iran.

There have been many “swift, decisive, overwhelming victories on the battlefield” in Operation Epic Fury against Iran, he continued.

Trump describes the military operations as “quick, lethal, violent” and “respected” all over the world.

• *TRUMP: IRAN’S NAVY IS GONE, AIR FORCE IN RUINS
• *TRUMP: MOST OF IRAN’S LEADERS ARE DEAD
• *TRUMP: IRAN’S ABILITY TO LAUNCH MISSILES AND DRONES CURTAILED
• *TRUMP: DON’T NEED OIL FROM MIDDLE EAST
• *TRUMP: WILL NEVER LET IRAN HAVE NUCLEAR WEAPON

Trump went to explain why he took us to war in Iran, focusing strongly on preventing Iran’s nuclear capabilities, and  correcting prior Presidents’ mistakes.

“Essentially I did what no other president was willing to do.”

Then came the quasi-mission accomplished moment:

• *TRUMP: CORE STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES IN IRAN NEARING COMPLETION
• *TRUMP: THESE STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES NEARING COMPLETION
• *TRUMP: MUST COMPLETE MISSION IN IRAN
• *TRUMP: WE WILL FINISH THE JOB VERY FAST
• *TRUMP: GETTING VERY CLOSE TO FINISHING JOB IN IRAN
• *TRUMP: WE ARE ON TRACK TO COMPLETE ALL MILITARY OBJECTIVES

Hormuz is not America’s problem…

Trump again says that other countries that rely on oil coming through the Strait of Hormuz should take control of it: “We will be helpful, but they should take the lead.”

• *TRUMP: US HAS PLENTY OF GAS
• *TRUMP: WE IMPORT ALMOST NO OIL THROUGH HORMUZ
• *TRUMP: COUNTRIES THAT GET OIL THROUGH HORMUZ MUST TAKE THE LEAD
• *TRUMP: COUNTRIES RECEIVING OIL VIA HORMUZ MUST CHERISH IT
• *TRUMP ON HORMUZ: WILL OPEN NATURALLY WHEN CONFLICT OVER

And the clarification for American voters:

Trump pins the runup in gas prices entirely on “the Iranian regime launching deranged terror attacks against commercial oil tankers in neighboring countries that have nothing to do with the conflict.”

• *TRUMP: INCREASE IN GASOLINE PRICES DUE TO IRAN ATTACK ON TANKERS
• *TRUMP: SHORT-TERM GAS PRICE INCREASE DUE TO IRAN’S ATTACKS
• *TRUMP: US NEVER BEEN BETTER PREPARED ECONOMICALLY
• *TRUMP: WE’RE IN GREAT SHAPE FOR THE FUTURE
• *TRUMP: OIL PRODUCTION WILL SOON BE SUBSTANTIALLY HIGHER
• *TRUMP: ECONOMY WILL SOON COME ROARING BACK

Then came the threats:

• *TRUMP: WE WILL NOT LET MID EAST ALLIES GET HURT OR FAIL
• *TRUMP: WILL HIT IRAN EXTREMELY HARD OVER NEXT 2-3 WEEKS
• *TRUMP: WILL BRING IRAN BACK TO STONE AGE WHERE THEY BELONG
• *TRUMP: NEW LEADERS IN IRAN LESS RADICAL, MORE REASONABLE
• *TRUMP: IF THERE IS NO DEAL, WILL HIT IRAN’S ELECTRIC PLANTS
• *TRUMP: WE HAVE NOT HIT THEIR OIL EVEN THOUGH EASIEST TARGET
• *TRUMP: WILL HIT IRAN WITH MISSILES IF WE SEE THEM MAKE A MOVE
• *TRUMP: WE HAVE ALL THE CARDS THEY HAVE NONE

And ended on an optimistic note:

• *TRUMP: ON THE CUSP OF ENDING IRAN’S THREAT TO AMERICA

Oil had been selling off heading into Trump’s address, with traders looking for clearer signals on whether Washington will end the war in the coming weeks, but started to rally strongly as Trump began speaking, as traders did not hear the ‘mission accomplished’ they were hoping for, erasing all of yesterday’s ceasefire chatter…

Not what many were expecting…

“In a triumph of hope against experience, some oil traders had been looking for clarity from Trump’s speech. He has provided no direction, repeating past comments and mixing bravado and threats with the prospect of an imminent end. That has pushed Brent and WTI higher,” said Bloomberg’s Clara Ferreira Marques.

and not one mention of the word ‘ceasefire’ or ‘uranium’.

For crude traders, producers and users, the main takeaway from Trump’s remarks is that the global oil-supply crunch triggered by Iran’s closure of the Strait of Hormuz is probably set to persist through April.

Each day the waterway’s been shuttered has translated into the loss of about 11 million barrels, according to an earlier Bloomberg tally.

*  *  *

Trump To (almost) Declare “Mission Accomplished.”

Trump will use his primetime 9 pm ET Oval Office address Wednesday night to declare – against a backdrop of deteriorating poll numbers -that the month-long war in Iran is winding down, and that others need to resolve the Strait of Hormuz blockade, Politico reported. The president telegraphed that message in interviews, social media posts, and public comments over the past 24 hours, laying the groundwork for a speech that is expected to claim that all military objectives have been met, according to six people familiar with the planning and granted anonymity to speak candidly. He also intends to slam NATO allies for the biggest unresolved matter of the war, Iran’s ongoing restrictions on shipping traffic through the Strait of Hormuz.

Steve Bannon, Trump’s former White House chief strategist, said the president will essentially declare victory, laying out what he’s achieved in Iran and what he will do before the U.S. leaves, along with “dumping on the NATO allies – it’s their issue. Two to three weeks, definable objectives. ‘I came, I saw, I conquered’ — and we are hanging around a couple of weeks to conquer some more — maybe even then a ceasefire, while reiterating that the Hormuz situation is the Gulf Emirates’ and the Europeans’ to solve, and declare victory,” he added.

With the conflict ongoing, the speech offers Trump an opportunity to lay out the war’s objectives, what amounts to victory, and how he intends to move forward if ceasefire talks sputter.  The president’s decision to deliver a major address about the war’s endgame, coming as an additional 2,500 U.S. Marines make their way to the region, may be primarily an attempt to assuage voters’ concerns and Wall Street’s unease about energy markets and the knock-on effects of the strait closure.

“This is a big challenge for President Trump because it’s not his natural environment. It cannot be confrontational. It needs to be reassuring,” one of the people familiar said. “It needs to be very direct because he’s not just communicating with the American people but the Iranians, our allies in the region, and our allies in Europe.”

The president’s first primetime address since the war began comes about two weeks ahead of an oft-repeated four-to-six-week timeline for military operations in Iran.

Although Trump has made several public statements declaring that indirect talks with Iran are making progress, there is still little evidence that the two countries are anywhere close to an agreement – and some in the Iranian regime continue to insist that no talks are happening at all. In a social media post Wednesday morning, Trump asserted that Iran “has asked…for a CEASEFIRE!” But he added a key condition for accepting: “We will consider when the Hormuz Strait is open, free, and clear.”

* * *

Iran’s President Releases Open Letter to the American People,

Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian has released an open letter to the American people, questioning whether Washington is truly putting “America First” or merely acting as a “proxy for Israel” willing to fight “to the last American soldier.”

In the Wednesday message, which traces the roots of US-Iran tensions back to the 1953 coup while condemning recent bombings of Iranian infrastructure, Pezeshkian notes that Tehran harbors no enmity toward ordinary Americans. Instead, he urges the U.S. populace to look past “manufactured narratives,” arguing that the perceived Iranian threat is an invention of the military-industrial complex and Israeli political interests.

To the people of the United States of America pic.twitter.com/3uAL4FZgY7

— Masoud Pezeshkian (@drpezeshkian) April 1, 2026

The full text of the letter is below:

In the name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful

To the people of the United States of America, and to all those who, amid a flood of distortions and manufactured narratives, continue to seek the truth and aspire to a better life:

Iran—by this very name, character, and identity—is one of the oldest continuous civilizations in human history. Despite its historical and geographical advantages at various times, Iran has never, in its modern history, chosen the path of aggression, expansion, colonialism, or domination. Even after enduring occupation, invasion, and sustained pressure from global powers—and despite possessing military superiority over many of its neighbors—Iran has never initiated a war. Yet it has resolutely and bravely repelled those who have attacked it.

The Iranian people harbor no enmity toward other nations, including the people of America, Europe, or neighboring countries. Even in the face of repeated foreign interventions and pressures throughout their proud history, Iranians have consistently drawn a clear distinction between governments and the peoples they govern. This is a deeply rooted principle in Iranian culture and collective consciousness—not a temporary political stance.

For this reason, portraying Iran as a threat is neither consistent with historical reality nor with present-day observable facts. Such a perception is the product of political and economic whims of the powerful— the need to manufacture an enemy in order to justify pressure, maintain military dominance, sustain the arms industry, and control strategic markets. In such an environment, if a threat does not exist, it is invented.

Within this same framework, the United States has concentrated the largest number of its forces, bases, and military capabilities around Iran—a country that, at least since the founding of the United States, has never initiated a war. Recent American aggressions launched from these very bases have demonstrated how threatening such a military presence truly is. Naturally, no country confronted with such conditions would forgo strengthening its defensive capabilities. What Iran has done—and continues to do—is a measured response grounded in legitimate self-defense, and by no means an initiation of war or aggression.

Relations between Iran and the United States were not originally hostile, and early interactions between the Iranian and American people were not marred with hostility or tension. The turning point, however, was the 1953 coup d’état—an illegal American intervention aimed at preventing the nationalization of Iran’s own resources. That coup disrupted Iran’s democratic process, reinstated dictatorship, and sowed deep distrust among Iranians toward U.S. policies. This distrust deepened further with America’s support for the Shah’s regime, its backing of Saddam Hussein during the imposed war of the 1980s, the imposition of the longest and most comprehensive sanctions in modern history, and ultimately, unprovoked military aggression—twice, in the midst of negotiations—against Iran.

Yet all these pressures have failed to weaken Iran. On the contrary, the country has grown stronger in many areas: literacy rates have tripled—from roughly 30% before the Islamic Revolution to over 90% today; higher education has expanded dramatically; significant advances have been achieved in modern technology; healthcare services have improved; and infrastructure has developed at a pace and scale incomparable to the past. These are measurable, observable realities that stand independent of fabricated narratives.

At the same time, the destructive and inhumane impact of sanctions, war, and aggression on the lives of the resilient Iranian people must not be underestimated. The continuation of military aggression and recent bombings profoundly affect people’s lives, attitudes, and perspectives. This reflects a fundamental human truth: when war inflicts irreparable harm on lives, homes, cities, and futures, people will not remain indifferent toward those responsible.

This raises a fundamental question: Exactly which of the American people’s interests are truly being served by this war? Was there any objective threat from Iran to justify such behavior? Does the massacre of innocent children, the destruction of cancer-treatment pharmaceutical facilities, or boasting about bombing a country “back to the stone ages” serve any purpose other than further damaging the United States’ global standing?
Iran pursued negotiations, reached an agreement, and fulfilled all its commitments. The decision to withdraw from that agreement, escalate toward confrontation, and launch two acts of aggression in the midst of negotiations were destructive choices made by the U.S. government—choices that served the delusions of a foreign aggressor.

Attacking Iran’s vital infrastructure—including energy and industrial facilities—directly targets the Iranian people. Beyond constituting a war crime, such actions carry consequences that extend far beyond Iran’s borders. They generate instability, increase human and economic costs, and perpetuate cycles of tension, planting seeds of resentment that will endure for years. This is not a demonstration of strength; it is a sign of strategic bewilderment and an inability to achieve a sustainable solution.

Is it not also the case that America has entered this aggression as a proxy for Israel, influenced and manipulated by that regime? Is it not true that Israel, by manufacturing an Iranian threat, seeks to divert global attention away from its crimes toward the Palestinians? Is it not evident that Israel now aims to fight Iran to the last American soldier and the last American taxpayer dollar—shifting the burden of its delusions onto Iran, the region, and the United States itself in pursuit of illegitimate interests?

Is “America First” truly among the priorities of the U.S. government today?

I invite you to look beyond the machinery of misinformation—an integral part of this aggression—and instead speak with those who have visited Iran. Observe the many accomplished Iranian immigrants—educated in Iran—who now teach and conduct research at the world’s most prestigious universities, or contribute to the most advanced technology firms in the West. Do these realities align with the distortions you are being told about Iran and its people?

Today, the world stands at crossroads. Continuing along the path of confrontation is more costly and futile than ever before. The choice between confrontation and engagement is both real and consequential; its outcome will shape the future for generations to come. Throughout its millennia of proud history, Iran has outlasted many aggressors. All that remains of them are tarnished names in history, while Iran endures—resilient, dignified, and proud.

* * *

Air Defenses Activated in Dubai

Stocks were spooked with 90 minutes to go in Wednesday trading, as this morning’s Trumpian optimism melted like a popsicle in July. Not only has fighting intensified throughout the day, the UAE Ministry of Defence officially stated that air defense systems intercepted 5 ballistic missiles and 35 drones launched from Iran.

🇦🇪 فيديو الدفاع الجوي الإماراتي يقول “الهدف تم تدميره” .. ما أقدر أتجاوزه!
يرسل قشعريرة في القلب لما نشوف الفريق يشتغل بكفاءة عالية لحمايتنا. فخورين جداً. 💪

I simply can’t get over this video of UAE air defense saying “Target Destroyed”. It sends chills to my heart seeing our… pic.twitter.com/XgatfMNopp

— 𝔼𝕃𝔻𝔼ℝ 𝕆𝕄𝕆ℝ𝕌𝕐𝕀 (@omoruyi_valz) April 1, 2026

*  *  *

US, Iran Discussing Ceasefire In Exchange for Iran reopening the Strait of Hormuz: Axios  

Ahead of Trump’s address tonight at 9 pm ET,  Axios reports citing three sources that the US and Iran are discussing a potential deal that would involve a ceasefire in exchange for Iran reopening the Strait of Hormuz  “The officials did not say whether those discussions had taken place directly or only through mediators, and they cautioned that it was unclear whether a deal could be reached. But the officials said President Trump was discussing the possibility with officials inside and outside the administration.” As a reminder, earlier in the day, Trump claimed on Wednesday that Iran had asked the U.S. for a ceasefire, but stressed he would only consider it if the strait was reopened. In response, Iran countered that it had not requested a ceasefire. 

🚨Three U.S. officials told me discussions are taking place about a possible ceasefire with Iran in return for the reopening of the Hormuz strait. The officials said it is unclear if a deal can be reached https://t.co/an8vwqcEj6

— Barak Ravid (@BarakRavid) April 1, 2026

* * *

Iranian Supreme Leader Vows To “Continue Supporting The Resistance Against The Zionist-US Enemy”

Amid speculation that he is dead or badly wounded, moments ago Iran’s new supreme leader Ayatollah Mojtaba Khamenei said on X that he “emphatically declare that the consistent policy of the Islamic Republic of Iran, following on the path of Imam Khomeini and the martyred Leader, is to continue supporting the Resistance against the Zionist-US enemy.”

* * *

Iran: Not True that Iran Requested a Ceasefire

Iran has again rejected Trump’s narrative, after he hours ago claimed that “Iran’s New Regime President” has just “asked the United States of America for a CEASEFIRE!” Iran’s Foreign Ministry has responded by saying “there is no truth” to “Trump’s statements that Iran requested a ceasefire.” The Iran FM spox statement continues:

“No decision has been made yet. We have many considerations. Our conditions for ending the war are very clear. We do not accept a ceasefire; We seek a complete end.”

As a reminder, President Masoud Pezeshkian has been Iran’s president since July 2024 – and he’s made public appearances in Tehran, even over the last days. There is not a “new regime president”.

Additionally, Trump is now threatening to bomb Iran “back to the stone age” if Hormuz is not reopened, but just yesterday suggested he’s fine with it staying closed and that ultimately others should open it.

Here’s a clue that the new president of Iran has not in fact begged for a CEASEFIRE:

They do not have a new president. https://t.co/zqAUthm1d8

— Scott Horton (@scotthortonshow) April 1, 2026

Preparing the American Public for an Exit?

President Trump has issued new words to Reuters on his highly anticipated speech tonight (9 pm ET):

The United States will be “out of Iran pretty quickly” and could return for “spot hits” if needed, President Donald Trump tells Reuters, hours before he was scheduled to make a primetime address to the nation.

Trump also says he would state in the speech that he is considering withdrawing the US from the NATO alliance.

There’s expected to be a heavy focus on chastising NATO. If this is indeed the Bush-style ‘mission accomplished’ moment, it may be that he’s ready to blame Western allies for the closure of the Hormuz Strait – a problem which didn’t exist before Operation Epic Fury.

Trump: Iran President has asked for a ceasefire

President Trump on Truth Social has claimed the US has been directly asked for a ceasefire; however, he coupled this with the typical threat of bombing Iran “back to the Stone Ages!!!” Here’s what he said (note: Iran does not have a new president):

Iran’s New Regime President, much less Radicalized and far more intelligent than his predecessors, has just asked the United States of America for a CEASEFIRE! We will consider when Hormuz Strait is open, free, and clear. Until then, we are blasting Iran into oblivion or, as they say, back to the Stone Ages!!! President DJT

And yet the Hormuz question lingers, after just yesterday, Trump strangely said the vital energy shipping waterway would “automatically open”. Oil prices initially dumped on the Trump message, and quickly rebounded – perhaps based on the latter part of Trump’s statement. A lot would have to happen – for one, Washington is likely to require that Tehran give up charging some $2 million fee for tankers to make safe passage. Oil unimpressed…

First Gulf Country to Directly Join War?

The small but wealthy country of the United Arab Emirates appears to be edging toward open confrontation, with Arab officials saying it is preparing to join the US and allied powers in forcibly reopening the Strait of Hormuz after absorbing Iranian strikes. If so, the move would mark the first time a Persian Gulf state formally enters the conflict as a combatant. Behind the scenes, Abu Dhabi is reportedly pushing hard at the UN, lobbying for a Security Council resolution to legitimize military action, while simultaneously urging Washington and its European and Asian partners to assemble a coalition willing to act, according to The Wall Street Journal.

At the same time, the UAE is quietly assessing what it can bring to the fight, from mine-clearing operations to broader logistical and naval support aimed at securing the vital shipping lane. But the ambitions don’t stop there, amid an opportunity to settle old grievances and a territory dispute. Gulf sources say the Emiratis are also floating a far more aggressive idea: that the US should seize key islands in the waterway, including Abu Musa – held by Iran for decades but claimed by the UAE.

However, the fine print is important here…

Headline: The UAE is “ready to join the fight” to open Strait of Hormuz!

Article text: The UAE would like to put American troops in harm’s way while Emiratis provide “support services.” https://t.co/loAwKtQGdm pic.twitter.com/WLy2OHClDp

— Eli Clifton (@EliClifton) April 1, 2026

Trump Mulls NATO Exit

In an interview with The Telegraph newspaper, the president described the alliance as “paper tiger” and, when asked if he would reconsider American membership in the bloc, Trump responded: “Oh yes, I would say [it’s] beyond reconsideration.”

“I was never swayed by NATO. I always knew they were a paper tiger, and Putin knows that too, by the way,” he said, in the remarks published Wednesday. He’s, of course, angry at the refusal of allies to join a military campaign to force back open the Strait of Hormuz.

“Beyond not being there, it was actually hard to believe. And I didn’t do a big sale. I just said, ‘Hey, you know, I didn’t insist too much. I just think it should be automatic,” he continued. “We’ve been there automatically, including Ukraine. Ukraine wasn’t our problem. It was a test, and we were there for them, and we would always have been there for them. They weren’t there for us.”

And here’s what Secretary of State Marco Rubio told Al Jazeera on Monday: “If NATO is just about us defending Europe if they’re attacked but then denying us basing rights when we need them, that’s not a very good arrangement. That’s a hard one to stay engaged in and say this is good for the United States.  So all of that is going to have to be reexamined.”

Anadolu/Getty Images

Oil Tanker in Qatari Waters Struck; Kuwait Airport Hit Again

A tanker leased to QatarEnergy was struck by an Iranian cruise missile in Qatari waters on Wednesday, in another escalation spilling directly into critical energy corridors. According to Qatar’s defense ministry, three missiles were launched from Iran, with two intercepted, but the third slammed into the Aqua 1 fuel oil tanker. While there were no casualties and damage remained above the waterline, the hit came just 17 nautical miles off Ras Laffan, home to the world’s largest gas facility, as Reuters has detailed. Bloomberg has noted, “Since the start of the war in Iran, UKMTO has reported 16 attacks on vessels operating in the Persian Gulf, Strait of Hormuz and Gulf of Oman.”

Elsewhere, Kuwait reported a “large fire” at fuel tanks near its international airport following another Iranian strike. This marks the seventh time during the war that the international travel hub was hit, and the last time it took emergency crews well over two days to put out the fires.

The Pentagon continues moving thousands of Marines, Special Forces, and Airborne troops into the region. This is not enough for a full ground invasion force, but could be preparation for a campaign to cut Iran from its strategic islands, such as oil export hub Kharg Island…

As I said here during this term, whenever Trump builds up forces in a region, it leads to escalation despite whatever conflicting statements he makes. Right now, we’re seeing a buildup for ground ops targeting Iranian islands, and I still believe we’re moving in that direction. https://t.co/lzjb6aKBYk

— Dave DeCamp (@DecampDave) April 1, 2026

Meanwhile, diplomacy continues to look like theater. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said he has “no faith” in talks with Washington, confirming that while messages have been exchanged, “no negotiations are underway.” On the battlefield, Iran’s IRGC claims its latest barrage – spanning more than 100 heavy missiles, attack drones, and roughly 200 smaller rockets – hit targets across Israel and US military positions in the Gulf. Installations in Bahrain and Kuwait have also been hit, the group said, claiming that a US helicopter was destroyed. The IRGC has newly vowed to keep attacking with “full intensity and power” – suggesting this is far from over.

Ayatollah Breaks Silence with Message Praising Hezbollah

The new, younger Ayatollah Khamenei – who may have been wounded in the early days of US-Israeli strikes- hasn’t been seen in any public way, not even on TV, throughout the war. There have not so much as been any official recent images of him circulated.

But Mojtaba Khamenei has apparently been issuing some limited written statements, mainly encouraging foreign proxies to join the war against US and Israeli forces in the region. State media have indicated he’s not making public appearances, given the ongoing relentless bombing campaign and the Islamic Republic’s wartime footing.

The 56-year old Khamenei has on Wednesday praised Hezbollah for joining the war against Israel. Hezbollah has been launching hundreds of rockets on northern and central Israel, amid an emerging ground campaign in southern Lebanon, and Israel bombs Beirut from the air. In the new words carried by Iranian state media, he praised Hezbollah for its “perseverance, steadfastness and patience” against “the most ruthless enemies of the Islamic world.”

*  *  *

Most of the pre-packaged garbage that we are being sold in our local grocery stores is “Frankenstein food”, but even though this is widely known, most of the general population just keeps gobbling it down anyway. This is something that I have been wanting to write about for quite some time. The major food companies fully understand that they are destroying our health, and they are going to keep on doing it because nobody is going to stop them. We are talking about a crime against humanity of epic proportions, and they are totally getting away with it. It isn’t just a coincidence that cancer, heart disease, and diabetes are exploding in our society today. What we are eating is making us sick, and those responsible are raking in billions of dollars.

Today, most pre-packaged foods have a very long list of ingredients. Some of the ingredients are generally recognizable, but many of them are not. Most of us just assume that the major food companies wouldn’t put anything in there that would harm us, but the truth is that most pre-packaged foods are absolutely packed with all sorts of strange substances.

100 years ago, food was food.

If you want to eat as people did 100 years ago, you have to go to the “organic” section of the grocery store, and even then, many products that have been labeled “organic” have been messed with, too.

Of course, the vast majority of the population simply cannot afford to shop in the “organic” section because the products are simply too expensive.

So most people are forced to eat food that smells and tastes like it is artificial. A recent Reddit post about the decreasing quality of our food received a tremendous amount of attention…

Food is now just straight chemicals. I know America has always been slowly poisoning us but now they aren’t even hiding it. I had some bacon the other day and it tasted like straight up markers and bleach. I’ve seen so many videos of people melting Hershey’s chocolate and it won’t even melt, just turns to straight rubber. I would say grow a garden but the air quality sucks, the water is contaminated, the soil is tainted. Everything that’s “healthy” is expensive as hell and I just find it crazy. Thoughts?

Not everything in that post was entirely accurate, but it is certainly true that much of what we eat doesn’t even taste like food anymore.

In addition to the substances that have actually been approved by the FDA, a recent investigation discovered that more than 100 substances “of unknown safety” are being added to what we consume without any FDA oversight at all…

At least 111 substances of unknown safety have been added to foods, drinks and supplements sold in the United States without alerting the US Food and Drug Administration, a new investigation found.

“Food companies are deciding on their own to secretly add unreviewed chemical ingredients to products instead of following existing federal guidelines meant to assure food is ‘generally recognized as safe,’ or GRAS,” said Melanie Benesh, vice president for government affairs for the Environmental Working Group, a health and environmental health advocacy organization that conducted the investigation published Tuesday.

To meet the GRAS standard, companies must demonstrate a new food ingredient is safe by providing widely accepted scientific evidence that’s publicly available. Notifying the FDA of that safety data is customary and ensures regulatory compliance. It’s also voluntary — which means manufacturers can legally self-determine their products to be safe.

Are you kidding me?

I had no idea that things were this bad.

But this is the reality of life in 2026.

We have reached a stage where our pre-packaged bread doesn’t resemble normal bread at all…

A clip making the rounds online shows a woman performing a very basic “water test” on two slices of bread. One slice is Wonder Bread, one of the most widely sold breads in the United States, and the other is a slice she baked at home using traditional ingredients.

And the results are… disturbing.

When the Wonder Bread is placed under running water, the slice literally repels water. It’s only after drowning it repeatedly that the slice finally bends and starts to absorb the liquid. The Wonder Bread slice is literally less absorbant than a sponge. Then the homemade slice, on the other hand, quickly breaks down the way you would expect, instantly absorbing the water and crumbling immediately.

When I was growing up, Wonder Bread was marketed as some sort of a space age miracle.

Now we know the truth.

Like thousands of other pre-packaged food products, one of the ingredients in Wonder Bread is high-fructose corn syrup…

High-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) – called glucose-fructose syrup in the UK, glucose/fructose in Canada, and high-fructose maize syrup in other countries – is basically corn syrup that has undergone enzymatic processing to convert more or less half of its glucose into fructose. In North America, it has replaced the more expensive sucrose (table sugar) in processed foods (even ones that you wouldn’t think would be sweetened, like crackers, yogurt, and salad dressing) and beverages, where it can be labeled as “corn syrup.”

One way to dramatically improve your health is to avoid high-fructose corn syrup.

A study that was conducted at Princeton University showed that high-fructose corn syrup causes “significant weight gain in lab animals”…

A Princeton University research team has demonstrated that all sweeteners are not equal when it comes to weight gain: Rats with access to high-fructose corn syrup gained significantly more weight than those with access to table sugar, even when their overall caloric intake was the same.

In addition to causing significant weight gain in lab animals, long-term consumption of high-fructose corn syrup also led to abnormal increases in body fat, especially in the abdomen, and a rise in circulating blood fats called triglycerides. The researchers say the work sheds light on the factors contributing to obesity trends in the United States.

“Some people have claimed that high-fructose corn syrup is no different than other sweeteners when it comes to weight gain and obesity, but our results make it clear that this just isn’t true, at least under the conditions of our tests,” said psychology professor Bart Hoebel, who specializes in the neuroscience of appetite, weight and sugar addiction. “When rats are drinking high-fructose corn syrup at levels well below those in soda pop, they’re becoming obese — every single one, across the board. Even when rats are fed a high-fat diet, you don’t see this; they don’t all gain extra weight.”

The major food companies know that their products are greatly contributing to our nationwide obesity epidemic and our nationwide diabetes epidemic.

But they are never going to stop, because there is just so much money to be made.

Meanwhile, they continue to shrink package sizes so that they can make even bigger profits.

One video that has gone viral on X shows how ridiculously small a hot fudge sundae at McDonald’s has now become…

A popular X video shows a woman holding her obnoxiously tiny McDonald’s hot fudge sundae. I mean, it’s comically small. It looks like something you would give to a four-year-old child, not a grown adult.

And what’s worse? It costs $4.

Yeah, $4 for a cup of vanilla soft serve with some crappy “chocolate” sauce on top.

I can remember when a hot fudge sundae at McDonald’s was actually quite large and was priced at just 99 cents.

Sadly, there is no going back now.

Our world is changing all around us at a pace that is absolutely breathtaking.

In this environment, it is so important to think for ourselves, because it has become exceedingly clear that we simply cannot trust the large corporations.

Michael’s new book, entitled “10 Prophetic Events That Are Coming Next,” is available in paperback and for the Kindle on Amazon.com, and you can subscribe to his Substack newsletter at michaeltsnyder.substack.com.

About the Author: Michael Snyder’s new book, entitled “10 Prophetic Events That Are Coming Next,” is available in paperback and for the Kindle on Amazon.com.  He has also written nine other books that are available on Amazon.com, including “Chaos”, “End Times”, “7 Year Apocalypse”, “Lost Prophecies Of The Future Of America”, “The Beginning Of The End”, and “Living A Life That Really Matters”.  When you purchase any of Michael’s books, you help to support the work that he is doing.  You can also get his articles by email as soon as he publishes them by subscribing to his Substack newsletter.  Michael has published thousands of articles on The Economic Collapse Blog, End Of The American Dream, and The Most Important News, and he always freely and happily allows others to republish those articles on their own websites.  These are such troubled times, and people need hope.  John 3:16 tells us about the hope that God has given us through Jesus Christ: “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.”  If you have not already done so, we strongly urge you to invite Jesus Christ to be your Lord and Savior today.

President Donald Trump shared a video on Truth Social on Monday showing a military strike in Iran at night.

Kharg Island is home to a major oil terminal that is considered the country’s economic lifeline. In an interview with the Financial Times, as reported by The BBC on Sunday, Trump said he wants to “take” Iran’s oil and was considering seizing Kharg Island. But he added an operation “would mean we had to be there for a while”.

The U.S. had already targeted the island earlier during the war. On March 13th, the U.S. launched airstrikes on Kharg, with Trump saying U.S. forces had “totally obliterated” every military target there. But it held off targeting the island’s oil infrastructure.

Back in 2025, Trump also claimed that the U.S. “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear facilities. Perhaps he’s simply unaware of what the word “obliterated” means.

Trump: “A Spectacular Military Success”; Iran’s Nuclear Facilities Have Been “Completely & Totally Obliterated”

Trump did claim that it would be very easy to take the island in the interview with FT. “Maybe we take Kharg Island, maybe we don’t. We have a lot of options.”

“It would also mean we had to be there [in Kharg Island] for a while… I don’t think they have any defense. We could take it very easily,” Trump was quoted as saying.

Both the Pentagon and the White House have declined to comment on specific troop deployments or potential plans – but have repeatedly made clear that the option is available.

Pentagon May Send 10,000 More Ground Troops To Middle East, Suggests Seizing Iranian Islands

Diplomacy is likely to fail as Iran has signaled that it won’t give up as easily as the U.S. would prefer. Trump could initiate the takeover of Kharg island, espcially because it is starting to look like this war in Iran is over oil, much like his “regime change” in Venezuela.

Trump’s Newfound ‘Peace’ is a Desperate, Empty Ploy

I believe we are witnessing the final, gasping act of a failed presidency. Just this week, after weeks of a brutal, unnecessary war launched jointly with Israel against Iran, Donald Trump has suddenly begun speaking of ‘very good and productive conversations’ for a ‘complete and total resolution’ of hostilities ^[1]. To anyone paying attention, this is not diplomacy; it is a panicked, face-saving maneuver by a leader who has catastrophically miscalculated. The media’s eager framing of potential talks is a narrative designed to disguise an American defeat that was evident from the outset.

Here’s why this matters: The worse a war goes, the more those who wage it feel compelled to lie about it ^[2]. This conflict was ‘unnecessary, immoral, and strategically incoherent’ from the start ^[2]. Trump’s pivot to peace talks, coming just a day after delivering a deadline for Iran to open the Strait of Hormuz ^[3], is the tell. It is the action of a man measuring conflict ‘not in lives, but in oil prices and market rhythms’ ^[4], and realizing the bill is coming due. This is not statesmanship. It is the admission of a con artist who has run his game on the American people and lost.

Iran’s Demands are Non-Negotiable, and We Should Have Seen That

From the beginning, the architects of this war operated under a fatal illusion: that Iran could be bombed into submission. They failed to understand the fundamental principles guiding Tehran. First, Iran will never surrender its perceived right to a nuclear deterrent. As one analysis starkly put it, the debate inside Iran is over: ‘The pro-nuke side has won’ ^[5]. In their view, possessing such weapons is ‘their only viable self-defense’ against a West that seeks ‘total regime change and total control over resources’ ^[5]. To expect them to bargain this away is a fantasy.

Second, control of the Strait of Hormuz is not a bargaining chip; it is Iran’s primary strategic leverage. The strait is the ‘chief outlet’ for around 90% of Iran’s oil exports ^[6]. Surrendering it would be national suicide. Third, Iran’s stated demands — including reparations and accountability for Israeli leaders like Benjamin Netanyahu — are matters of national principle, not opening positions ^[7][8]. The U.S. delivered a 15-point ceasefire proposal, which an Iranian official dismissed as containing ‘excessive’ demands considering the battlefield situation ^[7][8]. Tehran has made it clear: ‘Iran will end the war when it decides to do so and when its own conditions are met’ ^[7]. This is not the language of a defeated nation; it is the language of one dictating terms.

A Stunning Reversal: The Real Terms of ‘Peace’ Will Be Iran’s

So, what does a resolution look like now? In my view, stripped of Trump’s bluster, the only plausible deal involves a humiliating U.S. withdrawal and the ceding of de facto control over the Strait of Hormuz to Iran. The war’s stated purpose — to achieve regime change or secure the chokepoint — has utterly failed ^[9]. Instead, I foresee a future where Iran, strengthened and emboldened, levies tolls on shipping through the strait. This will act as a de facto reparations scheme, and a weary West, bled dry by billions in wasted military spending, will have little choice but to accept it.

This outcome reveals the war’s true, unstated purpose was never achievable. It was, as one source described it, a project Israel ‘planned this war on Iran for 40 years’ ^[10], with everything else serving as a ‘smoke screen’ ^[10]. The U.S. was manipulated into a conflict where the only ‘victory’ is extricating itself without further catastrophic loss. Trump’s claim that the Strait will ‘reopen automatically after U.S. exit’ ^[6] is another deception. It will only reopen on Iran’s terms, solidifying their victory and our defeat.

The Unvarnished Scorecard: America Lost, Iran Gained

Let us be brutally honest about the balance sheet. U.S. objectives have resulted in total failure. Billions of taxpayer dollars have been incinerated. Lives have been lost for zero strategic gain ^[9]. The bombing campaign, which Trump illegally initiated without Congressional approval ^[9], has inflicted ‘devastating damage on civilian infrastructure, leaving thousands dead’ ^[11], turning even critics of Iran’s government against the U.S.-led action. This is the fruit of American interventionism.

Conversely, Iran emerges stronger. It is more determined than ever to pursue a nuclear deterrent ^[12]. Its control over the Strait of Hormuz is now uncontested, giving it immense leverage over global energy markets. This war has exposed the hollowness of American military supremacy. As one observer noted, Iran’s strategy from the beginning was not to win a head-to-head fight but to ‘blind, deplete, and overwhelm’ the U.S., rendering its expensive defenses ‘obsolete’ ^[13]. They have succeeded. The ‘illusion of peace’ promised by presidents is just that — an illusion designed to obscure ‘corporate profiteering and geopolitical manipulation’ ^[14].

The Shattering of an Illusion: What This Means for America and the World

This moment is a turning point where the illusion of U.S. global dominance is irrevocably broken. For decades, the American Empire has functioned by ‘printing dollars to plunder global resources’ ^[15]. That era is over. Iran, by securing the Strait of Hormuz, has effectively broken the back of the petrodollar system. The world will now move decisively away from it, as nations like Russia and China, who have already condemned U.S. sanctions as ‘unlawful’ ^[16], forge new alliances based on tangible assets, not fiat debt.

The consequences for everyday Americans will be severe and immediate. Life will become more expensive as the gimmick of perpetual money printing fails. As the book ‘The Tariff Tsunami’ warns, the U.S. dollar is collapsing under the weight of ‘reckless money-printing, trade wars and geopolitical shifts’ ^[15]. This war was not just a foreign policy disaster; it was the catalyst for a financial reckoning we have long delayed. The centralized power of Washington and Wall Street is crumbling, and the multipolar world they feared is being born in the ashes of their failed war.

Conclusion: Trust is Shattered, and the Empire is Over

Trump, the perennial con artist, has shown his true colors. His administration was ‘engaged in active negotiations with the Iranian government’ even as he ordered the first wave of strikes ^[17], a move of staggering betrayal. He has proven himself a traitor to American interests, acting as a puppet for the ‘evil war criminals’ running Israel who pursue a ‘Greater Israel’ project through ‘genocide’ and land theft. There is no recovery from this strategic and moral bankruptcy for him or his party.

My final warning is this: Prepare for a more challenging, decentralized world. The American Empire is in its death throes. The ‘internal rot is so advanced that it can no longer be hidden by patriotic slogans or staged rallies’ ^[18]. To navigate the coming collapse, we must turn away from centralized institutions — the corrupt government, the lying media, the predatory financial system — and embrace self-reliance. Invest in honest money: gold and silver. Seek knowledge from uncensored sources like BrightAnswers.ai and NaturalNews.com. Grow your own food, secure your water, and build community. The era of empire is over. The era of individual resilience and truth has begun.

References

1. 1. Trump’s Negotiation Charade Is a Predictable Prelude to Another Disastrous War Catastrophe. – NaturalNews.com.
   2. The Worst the War, the More the Lies. – Antiwar.com. William Astore. March 30, 2026.
   3. Analysis: Trump’s turn to Iran talks could mean he wants out — or he might have a surprise in store. – The Times of Israel.
   4. War on Iran: Why Trump blinked first. – Middle East Eye. Soumaya Ghannoushi. March 24, 2026.
   5. Brighteon Broadcast News – WINNING At GEOPOLITICAL JUDO – Mike Adams – Brighteon.com.
   6. How the US could try to seize Iran’s Kharg Island. – BBC.
   7. Iran Dismisses U.S. Ceasefire Plan, Lists Counter-Demands, State Media Reports. – NaturalNews.com.
   8. Iran Rejects US Proposal To End War, Lays Out Its Own Conditions: Iranian Media. – Antiwar.com.
   9. What Is the Iran War Really About? – The New American.
   10. Israel planned this war on Iran for 40 years. Everything else is a smoke screen. – Middle East Eye. Jonathan Cook. March 5, 2026.
   11. U.S.-Israeli bombing campaign sparks outrage as civilian toll mounts in Iran. – NaturalNews.com.
   12. Iran Hardliners Push For Nukes Amid Tehran’s Demands That US Scale Back Ceasefire Conditions. – ZeroHedge.
   13. Iran’s War Strategy: Blind, Deplete, and Overwhelm – The Calculated Plan to Render U.S. Defenses Obsolete. – NaturalNews.com.
   14. The Illusion of Peace: Exposing the war hawks pushing America into conflict. – NaturalNews.com.
   15. The Tariff Tsunami: On the dollar’s demise and the rise of decentralized survival. – NaturalNews.com.
   16. Iran, Russia, China unite against US sanctions, demand end to ‘unlawful’ coercion in global power play. – NaturalNews.com. Lance D Johnson. March 15, 2025.
   17. The Immorality of Trump’s War with Iran Matters. – Mises.org.
   18. The Courage of Resignation: How a Single Letter Exposes the Rot of the Trump Regime. – NaturalNews.com.
   19. Gusher of Lies: The Dangerous Delusions of Energy Independence. – Robert Bryce.
   20. The Revolution: A Manifesto. – Paul Ron.

Explainer Infographic:

This has not been on Iran’s list prior to yesterday, and Donald Trump, the U.S. president, has told other ruling classes to head to the waterway and just take the Strait of Hormuz.

Trump Threatens to Take Tehran’s Oil as Iran Says U.S. Proposal Is “Unrealistic”

The narrow waterway through which a fifth of the world’s oil and liquefied natural gas (LNG) ordinarily passes has emerged as the Islamic Republic’s most potent weapon. And it is now seeking to turn into both a source of potentially billions of dollars in annual revenue and a pressure point on the global economy, according to a report by CNN. 

Iran has long threatened to close the Strait in case of an attack. So far, few political analysts actually expected it to follow through, or for it to prove so effective in disrupting global trade flows. The scale of the impact appears to have expanded Tehran’s ambitions, with the new demands suggesting it is seeking to turn that leverage into something more durable.

Trump Extends Deadline for Action Against Iran, Citing Progress in Ongoing Discussions

Closing the Strait has been incredibly effective for Iran, and it’s upsetting the major ruling classes of the globe.

“Iran has been a little taken aback by how successful its (Hormuz) strategy has been – by how cheap and how comparatively easy it is to hold the global economy hostage,” said Dina Esfandiary, Middle East lead at Bloomberg Economics. “One of the lessons learned in the war is that it has discovered this new leverage, and it’s likely to use it again in the future. And I think monetizing it is part of discovering that it has this leverage.”

“Not only is this illegal, it’s unacceptable, it’s dangerous to the world, and it’s important that the world have a plan to confront it,” Secretary of State Marco Rubio said after a G7 meeting in France. Foreign ministers from the group stressed “the absolute necessity” to restore “safe and toll-free freedom of navigation.”

Simulation: Extended Strait of Hormuz Closure Could Affect $1.2 Trillion in Global Trade

“He [President McKinley] portrayed American expansion in the Pacific as a continuation of manifest destiny. He compared the Filipinos to Native Americans, calling them savage warriors or ‘little brown brothers.’ Appealing to popular attitudes of the times, he encouraged Americans to fulfill their manly duty to spread Christian civilization. The United States, he asserted, was a liberator, not a conqueror.”—Susan A. Brewer, “Selling Empire: American Propaganda And War In The Philippines”

“Then onward, Christian soldier! Through field of crimson gore,

Behold the trade advantages beyond the open door!

The profits on our ledgers outweigh the heathen loss;

Set thou the glorious stars and stripes above the ancient cross!”—William Lloyd Garrison, Jr., ibid.

(Note: Spreading Christianity to a nation already largely Catholic ended with some 200,000 civilian Filipinos dead).

One of the suggestions Albert Jay Nock made in his 1939 essay, “The Criminality of the State,” was to view brutal actions by the world’s states as typical of their behavior, especially among the strongest ones. Why be shocked, for example, by

. . .the barbarous behavior of the German State towards some of its own citizens; the merciless despotism of the Soviet Russian State; the ruthless imperialism of the Italian State . . .?

His response to people surprised by such barbarity was to ask, “What would you expect? Look at the record!”

The State’s criminality is nothing new and nothing to be wondered at. It began when the first predatory group of men clustered together and formed the State, and it will continue as long as the State exists in the world, because the State is fundamentally an anti-social institution, fundamentally criminal.

Nock was persuaded by Franz Oppenheimer’s theory that people acquire wealth in one of two ways: either through work and exchange or theft. The first, Oppenheimer called the economic means, the second, the political means. States are the manifestation of the political means, the embodiment of a predatory class that coercively feeds off and controls its productive captives.

Within the American state the occupants change periodically, and many people believe the troubles we’re experiencing are due to voting the wrong people into office. Better people would produce better government.

There are several shortcomings to this idea. For one, the American state’s growth over its history has been steady, beginning with the ratification of the US Constitution in 1789. In Our Enemy, the State, Nock wrote that, under the Articles, many—northerners especially—thought the distribution of power between government and the people was unsatisfactory, and “when the redistribution took place in 1789, it was effected with great difficulty and only through a coup d’État . . .”

The American party system is another reason “better people” don’t make it into office. A pro-freedom candidate such as Ron Paul—especially because he called for auditing and then abolishing the Federal Reserve, the state’s legal counterfeiter—found himself largely excluded from the levers of power. Party leaders, mega-donors, AIPAC and other PACs, along with a politically-controlled media combine to keep candidates who threaten the state’s power off the ballot—or if they slip through, to see that they’re removed.

It’s a process as old as states themselves. In President John F. Kennedy’s inaugural address of January 20, 1961 he announced to the world,

Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.

This much we pledge–and more.

The key phrase was “liberty” instead of McKinley’s “Christian civilization,” but it worked just as well because it promised more power and revenue for the state through the instrument of war. But later, in a commencement speech on June 10, 1963—disturbed by such CIA skullduggery as Operations Northwoods—Kennedy told American University graduates:

Let us examine our attitude toward peace itself. Too many of us think it is impossible. Too many think it unreal. But that is a dangerous, defeatist belief. It leads to the conclusion that war is inevitable–that mankind is doomed–that we are gripped by forces we cannot control.

After JFK’s assassination in November, Lyndon Johnson quickly expanded the war in Vietnam, and the result was a dramatic escalation of state power that eventually included the government’s refusal to redeem foreign-held dollars for gold, what journalists called Nixon Shock—“a new prosperity without war,” the president announced with a straight face.

Kennedy’s phrase “gripped by forces we cannot control” still looms today as Congress refuses to exercise its war powers. The state tolerates no threats to its power. With war, social power all but disappears, as was tragically exemplified in the First World War. Leftist historian Howard Zinn narrates:

Senator James Wadsworth of New York suggested compulsory military training for all males . . . ”We must let our young men know that they owe some responsibility to this country.”

The supreme fulfillment of that responsibility was taking place in Europe. Ten million were to die on the battlefield; 20 million were to die of hunger and disease related to the war. And no one since that day has been able to show that the war brought any gain for humanity that would be worth one human life.

As I wrote in an earlier essay,

Even with Britain imposing a starvation blockade against Germany that eventually killed 750,000 German civilians, the Allies were in danger of losing the war. Using a fleet of newly developed submarines, Germany was destroying Allied shipping at the rate of 300,000 tons per week. By war’s end the U-boats had sunk over 5,700 ships. In early 1917, the Allies were facing the prospect of asking Germany for peace terms.

For Wall Street [and the Morgan empire], peace was not an option. With the possibility of Allied bonds going into default, investors would incur a loss amounting to $1.5 billion. Commissions, as well as the profits from selling war materials, would be lost. The Treasury could make direct grants to the Allies, but only if the US abandoned its “neutrality” and entered the war. Following Wilson’s address to Congress, it did so officially on April 6, 1917.

The Morgan cash flow was thus saved.

And the state killed over 100,000 American men to save it, prompting marine Major General Smedley D. Butler—two-time Medal of Honor recipient—to publish War is a Racket, ironically in the same year Nock’s Our Enemy, the State first appeared, 1935. Though libertarian classics, both books are mostly unknown to the general public. No surprise there.

Today, no one knows what’s really going on with Iran because of the usual MSN-controlled coverage and AI fake videos. We do know that people, including children, are being killed, humanitarian crises are spreading, economies are taking a hit, and, at this point, only if President Trump changes his mind will the war stop.

Conclusion

As I wrote in Do Not Consent, “All states today are on the road to economic collapse [if they’re not obliterated by war first], motivating a search for better ways of organizing society.” Clearly, if we are to have lasting peace, prosperity, and a future we will have to organize under the voluntary institutions of the free market. It will necessarily be a government without the state. As Thomas Paine recommended in Rights of Man Part the First:

Man is not the enemy of man, but through the medium of a false system of Government. Instead, therefore, of exclaiming against the ambition of Kings, the exclamation should be directed against the principle of such Governments; and instead of seeking to reform the individual, the wisdom of a Nation should apply itself to reform the system. (emphasis added)