"Truth Is On The Side Of the Oppressed." – Malcolm X
POLITICO hears power draining out of Trump’s White House, but the freedom of a banker to turn down a presidential favor tells us damn little about who can stop a war. From Nixon’s secret bombing of Cambodia through the post-9/11 grants of authority and the surveillance powers Democrats helped renew, Washington spent decades building the... Continue Reading →
NBC presents falling stocks, rising Treasury yields and volatile oil as separate market reactions to war. Put the pieces back together and a deeper political economy appears. The struggle over Hormuz is raising the cost of energy and global circulation while Washington is already refinancing enormous debts under sharply higher real yields. Those pressures don’t fall evenly: workers, indebted households and vulnerable importing countries absorb higher costs while energy producers and concentrated technology capital occupy very different positions. What looks like market turbulence is really a struggle over the rising material and financial cost of American command—and who gets forced to pay the bill.
The Gulf monarchies, once loyal to Washington's military dominance, are now scrambling for survival in a world where Iranian aggression opposes their established security framework. The ongoing war has exposed a perilous contradiction: the very American military infrastructure meant to protect the Gulf states has rendered them vulnerable to Iranian strikes. As the U.S. becomes a less reliable ally, these nations are cautiously seeking dialogue with Tehran, marking a seismic shift in regional politics. Their actions aren't a break from American influence but a pragmatic response to an urgent need for stability amidst rising tensions. The question remains—can they navigate this treacherous terrain without abandoning old alliances?
A UN investigation found reasonable grounds to believe U.S. forces committed war crimes in Iran after a primary school in Minab was struck and more than 150 people were killed. But the massacre cannot be understood as an isolated targeting failure inside an otherwise neutral war. The U.S.-Israeli assault began while diplomacy was still active, unfolded through a campaign that publicly celebrated overwhelming force, and repeatedly carried destructive power into civilian space. Minab exposes the larger structure: a war of aggression fragmented into legal incidents, technical explanations and media frames that make the crime scene visible while the war that created it slips into the background.
