Global oil prices fell to their lowest level since March, with Brent crude dropping to around $83 per barrel after President Donald Trump announced a peace deal with Iran on Sunday.
“The Deal with the Islamic Republic of Iran is now complete. Congratulations to all! I hereby fully authorize the toll free opening of the Strait of Hormuz, and, simultaneously herewith, authorize the immediate removal of the United States Naval blockade,” Trump wrote, adding, “Ships of the World, start your engines. Let the oil flow!” 
The president published the message at around 5:30 p.m. ET on Sunday, and since then, Brent crude oil futures have <a href="https://www.wsj.com/finance/u-s-futures-global-stocks-rise-oil-prices-tumble-on-iran-peace-deal-bc4e0000">dropped</a> over 5%. WTI crude oil, the U.S. benchmark, also fell by about 6% to below $80 per barrel. 
Before the war, the national average was hovering below $3 per gallon. As of Monday morning, average gas prices in the United States are sitting at $4.07, which is down nearly 50 cents from a month ago, according to <a href="https://gasprices.aaa.com/">AAA</a>. 
A sustained decline in energy prices could bring other prices down as well. Inflation has ticked up the last couple of months with May’s reading showing the hottest inflation in three years at 4.2%. 
The stock market futures are also set to open higher. Futures tied to the Dow Jones Industrial Average jumped nearly <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/">1%</a> after Trump announced the deal. The S&amp;P 500 futures ticked up 1.2%, and the Nasdaq 100 added 2.1%. 
The climb on Monday comes after a winning week for the stock market last week, which was helped by SpaceX’s record-breaking $75 billion Initial Public Offering. Other markets around the world also reacted positively to news of a deal between the United States and Iran, with South Korea’s Kospi jumping <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2026/06/14/stock-market-today-live-updates.html">5%</a>, Japan’s Nikkei 225 gaining 5%, and Australia’s S&amp;P/ASX 200 climbed 1.25%. 
Iran&#8217;s Supreme National Security Council confirmed that a memorandum of understanding had been finalized and that fighting would come to an end &#8220;immediately and permanently&#8221; beginning Sunday night.
 The Peace Deal is scheduled to be signed on Friday, June 19, in Switzerland with Vice President JD Vance set to attend the signing. 
&#8220;I certainly plan to be there, but it&#8217;s possible the president himself could be there. We will figure it out, but what we know is that we have got a lot of work to do, but it is a very big win for the American people tonight,” Vance said on Sunday.

Oil tanker Universal Winner arrives in Ulsan after leaving Strait of Hormuz

One Major Cost Is Falling Fast After Trump’s Middle East Breakthrough

Crude Oil

Donald Trump

Iran

Oil and Gas

Stock Market

Oil prices spiked on Wednesday, with Brent crude climbing over $100 per barrel, after President Donald Trump extended the ceasefire with Iran.
A second ceasefire extension likely caused worry for investors that negotiations are not progressing, which would account for the spike. Additionally, the U.S. benchmark — West Texas Intermediate crude — rose by more than 2% to above $90 a barrel. The national average for gas prices remains near $4 per gallon, which is the highest rate since 2022. 
The lack of progress in negotiations means that repeated Iranian attacks — in addition to the ongoing U.S. blockade of all ships heading to or from Iranian ports — continue to impact oil prices by limiting the amount of oil moving through the Strait of Hormuz.
Also on Wednesday, Iran attacked both a container ship and a cargo ship as they traveled through the strait. Iran claimed the ships had “entered the area without proper authorization and allegedly tampered with their navigation systems.” Iran has stated that it will not tolerate any disruption to the “order and safety of the Strait of Hormuz.”
U.S. indices rose in response with the S&amp;P 500 up just below 1%. The Nasdaq is up 1.2%, and the Dow Jones up 0.7%. Oil futures continued to signal that within the next six months, oil could drop back down not only to the double-digits but could possibly even dip below <a href="https://www.cmegroup.com/insights/economic-research/2026/implications-of-wti-oil-futures-in-backwardation-amid-the-supply-crunch.html?utm_source=chatgpt.com">pre-war prices</a>. Late-2026 futures are trading near $40 per barrel, and expectations point to oil prices easing to the mid-$70s by the end of the year.
Most industries are feeling the impact of higher prices, but the global aviation sector in particular is experiencing significant disruption. Alaska Air and American Airlines have raised checked bag fees, and Alaska Air has withdrawn its profit forecast due to rising jet fuel costs.
Still, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent told Congress on Wednesday he suspects oil prices will be down soon. &#8220;Future prices are much lower than we are at present. I think the conflict will end. I think gasoline prices will come back to where they were, or perhaps lower.&#8221;

Oil Rig

Oil Prices Spike Dramatically As Iran Ceasefire Extends, Negotiations Stall

Global Politics

President Donald Trump admitted during a Tuesday interview that when he decided to take military action against Iran, he had expected oil prices to rise even higher than they have.
The president faces daily pushback over the rising oil prices tied to the conflict with Iran, but as he explained on CNBC, he had been prepared to weather even harsher criticism because he thought prices could potentially surge as high as $200 per barrel.
“If you would have told me that oil was at $90 as opposed to $200, I would be frankly surprised,” said President Trump, explaining that while the hotly-contested Strait of Hormuz is certainly important, people have found other sources for oil. “It’s an amazing phenomenon but when there are problems, people find out how to take care of things.&#8221;
If oil prices do reach Trump&#8217;s predicted $200 per barrel, they would be above record pricing. Oil prices peaked at $150 per barrel back in 2008 — which would be equivalent to about <a href="https://www.in2013dollars.com/us/inflation/2008?amount=150#:~:text=%24150%20in%202008%20is%20equivalent,cumulative%20price%20increase%20of%2053.37%25.">$230</a> per barrel today. Oil prices, currently at $90 per barrel, are the highest they have been since 2022. 
Trump said he had also expected the stock market to be in a worse position due to the hostilities in the Middle East: “Look at the S&amp;P 500 Index — it’s trading at exactly the same level as when we began all this. I thought it would drop 20% or more, and that oil prices would be much higher — but I’m pleased to say that hasn’t happened.”
The President explained that he felt he had to make the decision to allow the market to take a short-term hit in order to avoid one in the long run. 
“When I hit 50,000 on the DOW and 7,000 on the S&amp;P, I said I hate to do this to everybody, but I’m going to have to journey down to a place called Iran and make sure they don’t have a nuclear weapon because they will blow up the world,” Trump said, adding, “You want to see a bad stock market, try blowing up the Middle East then Europe and then they come for us.” 
Oil futures are signaling that, within the next six months, oil could drop back down to <a href="https://www.cmegroup.com/insights/economic-research/2026/implications-of-wti-oil-futures-in-backwardation-amid-the-supply-crunch.html?utm_source=chatgpt.com">pre-war prices</a>. Late 2026 futures have traded around $40 per barrel, and overall expectations suggest oil prices will fall to the mid-$70s by year&#8217;s end.

President Trump

Trump Braced For Oil Prices To Skyrocket As Iran Tensions Rose

Economy

Politics

For two years, California Democrats have used claims of &#8220;price gouging&#8221; to justify price controls for oil companies and other radical environmentalist policies.
But while California&#8217;s $6/gallon gas prices are the most expensive in the country, price gouging has nothing to do with it.
A new report by CBS News California Investigates <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/california-gas-prices-investigation-whats-to-blame/">revealed</a> a variety of factors are causing high prices, including global supply difficulties, refinery closures, and state policies. It found that the state&#8217;s high fuel prices are caused by a number of laws imposed by Democrats to protect the environment — not gouging by the oil companies themselves.
Notably, California requires fuel stations sell a special gas blend intended to reduce emissions, which is more expensive to produce. The blend also means the state is an “energy island” that can&#8217;t simply import cheaper fuel from other states. The special blend adds about 10 to 15 cents per gallon of gas.
Other factors include a 61-cent state excise tax per gallon; 23 cents per gallon from the state’s cap-and-invest program, which was created to reduce greenhouse gas emissions; and 14 cents per gallon from the state’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard.
Not on the list of oil refinery price gouging, which California Democrats have blamed for skyrocketing prices for years. In 2024, the California state legislature convened a special session during which it capped oil company profits. Two years later — and after the closure of two refineries that supplied almost 20% of California’s refining capabilities — state officials finally admitted there was no evidence of price gouging.
Now, California is outsourcing some of its oil refining to Asian countries, CBS News California Investigates reported. Relying on those countries can increase gas prices, since oil must be shipped across the Pacific, sometimes taking weeks to reach the state. Delays in transit can spike prices in the event of global shortages or refinery outages.
Even though global conflicts are exacerbating prices, the outlet found California’s gas prices were already higher than the national average, with 55% of the cost of each gallon coming from state-specific costs.
Another factor is a “mystery surcharge” that appeared in 2015 after the closure of a major refinery, but refinery operating costs were already higher in California before that surcharge, UC Berkeley economist Severin Borenstein told CBS News California Investigates.
After the state legislature found no evidence of price gouging, state officials said they found some causes of price increases.
“We’ve identified certain dynamics that were creating those price spikes,” California’s National Resources Secretary Wade Crowfoot told CBS News California Investigates.
Crowfoot said the state is trying to balance both affordability and climate goals, according to the outlet. He said he was not “in a position to point a finger” when asked if there was evidence of price gouging.
Last year, the California energy commission voted to pause its ability to set price caps on oil company profits for the next five years.
Manager of the Chevron Richmond refinery Tolly Graves told CBS News California Investigates that price caps ignore the volatility of the industry.
“Those good months are the only way we make a profit … if you cap the good months but don’t support the bad ones, it creates an unviable business,” Graves said.
The Chevron refinery produces gas for 20% of cars in Northern California and 60% of jet fuel from Sacramento to San Jose, according to the outlet.
Higher labor, energy, and regulatory costs all contribute to higher gas prices, Graves told the outlet. The state’s gasoline blend also requires specialized production that cost billions of dollars in investment.
“It costs us hundreds of millions a year just to stay in business,” Graves said. “Things have to change for us to be willing to invest in a refinery in California.”
California Governor Gavin Newsom&#8217;s office responded by doubling down. Anthony Martinez, a spokesman, a spokesman for Newsom, told The Daily Wire, &#8220;What changed is not California’s gas tax or state policies — those are fixed and don’t spike week to week. What changed is Trump’s shortsighted and costly war.&#8221;
Martinez added that California’s independent petroleum watchdog agency, the Division of Petroleum Market Oversight, is “monitoring the entire market for price gouging and is going after individual gas stations trying to exploit this crisis.”

California Governor Gavin Newsom Meets With Campaign Staff And Volunteer On Day Of Recall Election Vote

We Know Why Gas Costs So Much In California. It’s Bad For Dems.

Investigation Finds No Evidence Of Gas Price Gouging In California

California

Recent media coverage of rising gas prices reflects something more consequential than concern for energy affordability. It reveals a pattern of selective outrage and one meant to condition the American public to view any temporary cost associated with national security as politically unacceptable — especially under a Republican administration. This dynamic carries strategic consequences. It erodes trust, weakens institutional resilience, and reduces our country’s capacity to absorb short-term strain in pursuit of long-term stability.
During the Biden administration, gasoline prices <a href="https://www.wbur.org/npr/1084893419/gas-prices-surge-to-above-4-a-gallon-oil-russia-ukraine-antony-blinken">reached</a> historic and unsustainable levels, surpassing $5.00 per gallon in many parts of the country as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine disrupted global energy markets. The media’s coverage at the time was extensive, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/09/us/politics/fact-check-republicans-biden-gas.html">but they refused to blame then-President Biden</a> for foolishly tapping into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) in November 2021 ahead of the war. The dominant narrative emphasized structural forces, including global commodity markets, supply chain disruptions, and post-pandemic demand recovery outpacing supply. It was the former president’s climate policies, however, that inevitably invited energy insecurity.
Those explanations reflected the realities of energy economics. Energy markets respond to geopolitical shocks, and price volatility often follows disruptions to supply and transportation infrastructure. Public messaging from legacy media during that period <a href="https://time.com/6188569/gas-prices-oil/">emphasized patience while markets stabilized</a>.
Current coverage reflects a very different emphasis: It’s panicked, grim, and chaotic. The narrative is intended to guilt developed nations into <a href="https://apnews.com/article/middle-east-wars-renewable-energy-asia-4b5fe0693ce5816472c905db85f7da6e">abandoning</a> “warmongering” oil and gas for “<a href="https://time.com/7358460/renewable-energy-peace-democracy-venezuela/">peaceful</a>” renewable energy to fight a so-called climate crisis, despite much of the world now <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/16/magazine/climate-politics-us-world-paris-agreement.html">prioritizing</a> energy security. The United Nations claims wind and solar energy, unlike oil and gas, will withstand closures in the Strait of Hormuz. Much to the UN’s chagrin, energy-importing nations that have adopted 100% renewable energy targets are planning to purchase <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-03-19/after-qatar-lng-plant-outage-more-buyers-turn-to-us-suppliers">American liquefied natural gas (LNG)</a> or <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/18/business/iran-war-lng-asia-japan.html">pivot back to coal</a> after Qatar’s LNG terminal closed down.
Price volatility is frequently presented as <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/21/us/politics/gas-prices-republicans-affordability.html">evidence of policy failure</a> rather than as a predictable consequence of geopolitical risk. Rather than putting the temporary economic pressure as something that deserves perspective and patience, it is portrayed as a political liability that must be eliminated immediately. This framing amplifies anxiety while obscuring the strategic rationale behind national security decisions and the long-term expectation that energy prices will soon come back down. This isn’t 2022, with an administration that deliberately suppressed domestic energy production. The landscape is vastly different, and arguably more secure, with American energy dominance keeping prices relatively low here at home and coming to the rescue abroad.
That shift in emphasis by the media shapes public perception over time.
Research on public opinion during military operations <a href="https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2508.2007.00602.x">demonstrates</a> public support for national security decisions tracks the signals sent by major institutions.
Coverage that focuses primarily on risk, cost, and disruption encourages the public to conclude that action lacks justification. A sustained emphasis on negative consequences and downplaying the purpose and potential upsides contributes to declining confidence in leadership and reduced tolerance for continued engagement.
Over the long term, the media framing weakens our country and the public. A society that interprets every economic disruption as a disaster and evidence of fundamental failure becomes less willing to endure temporary hardship even when the alternative carries greater long-term risk and expense.
Trust declines gradually through accumulated inconsistency.
This erosion of trust carries implications beyond the current moment. A public conditioned to associate short-term economic disruption with failure will resist future decisions that require temporary sacrifice, regardless of the strategic stakes involved.
Public uncertainty about the necessity of current operations reflects an imbalance in how the rationale has been reinforced in public discourse. Policymakers have articulated the objective of degrading the capabilities of a regime that was developing advanced ballistic missile capabilities <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/world/iran/iran-fires-missiles-remote-uk-us-base-claiming-long-range-capabilities-rcna264547">able to reach long distances</a>, unfettered <a href="https://www.fdd.org/analysis/2025/05/21/9-myths-about-irans-uranium-enrichment-program/?gad_source=1&amp;gad_campaignid=23305160353&amp;gbraid=0AAAAADHXS9VYjLIExrfvz9Me63UlMpO7a&amp;gclid=CjwKCAjwyYPOBhBxEiwAgpT8P611Ekse1TESk6d_oEGyl9DdHc8HDPOTawrLNLyStN8M33Drkse33BoCfyAQAvD_BwE">nuclear ambitions</a>, arms proxy forces <a href="https://www.cfr.org/articles/irans-regional-armed-network">across multiple theaters</a>, and uses <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/world/iran-chokes-strait-hormuz-reported-2m-tanker-toll-regime-threatens-global-oil-supply">instability</a> to influence global energy markets.
The strategic logic rests on deterrence. Restoring deterrence imposes short-term costs but reduces the likelihood of sustained instability and higher long-term economic disruption – specifically global energy prices.
Coverage that concentrates on immediate economic consequences without sustained attention to strategic necessity leaves the public with incomplete information. That informational gap encourages apprehension and weakens support for popular actions that serve long-term security interests.
The United States has historically maintained security and prosperity by accepting temporary hardship when the stakes were explained clearly and consistently. Wartime rationing, economic sanctions, and military mobilization all required short-term sacrifice in service of larger objectives.
Public resilience depends on coherent communication from institutions and a shared understanding of the relationship between cost and purpose. That resilience weakens when the information environment frames disruption as avoidable and treats temporary hardship as evidence of failure.
Leadership requires the willingness to act despite short-term discomfort and to explain the reasons for that action clearly. Public resilience requires the willingness to endure temporary strain when the strategic rationale is understood.
Americans facing higher gas prices deserve transparency for what they are being asked to pay and the strategic purpose behind this ask from the media without bias. Clear explanation strengthens trust, supports resilience, and preserves the capacity to act decisively when national security requires it.
* * *
Meaghan Mobbs is director of Independent Women’s Center for American Safety and Security.
Gabriella Hoffman is director of Independent Women’s Center for Energy and Conservation.

California Gas Prices

Two Hits At The Pump — And What The Media Wants You To Forget

Affordable

Climate Change

Coal

Energy

Joe Biden

Opinion

Solar Power

Headlines today claim the war in Iran is a catastrophe.
We awakened to some bad but true stories: Oil tankers on fire in the Strait of Hormuz, leading to large-scale oil disruptions and a spike in the price of Brent Crude oil. Rumors of impending Iranian drone attacks in California. And then, the Iranian schoolgirls who were killed in a botched missile attack.
We&#8217;re not going to sugarcoat what&#8217;s going on because war is ugly.
But what&#8217;s happening right now is that Iran is fighting back. The regime is on its last legs, and it knows it. Even if it survives the current conflict, the question is, for how long? Because if they&#8217;re heavily damaged, and if it turns out they can&#8217;t defend against insurgents in their streets or against air flights, air sorties from opposing forces, how long does the regime last?
What we&#8217;re watching right now are the dying throes of a poisonous snake.
But that doesn&#8217;t mean the snake can&#8217;t do serious damage before it goes. This is typically what the endgame of a war looks like. The enemy lashes out with all of its final strength, pulling out every stop, pulling every lever. And then, unless we lose our willpower, they lose.
As Japan collapsed at the end of World War II, American casualties went up, not down. The Battle of Okinawa — fought on territory controlled by Japan since 1879, populated heavily with Japanese citizens and entirely with Japanese subjects — was the bloodiest battle of the Pacific War; 12,000 Americans ended up dead, between 36,000 and 49,000 Americans were wounded, alongside some 110,000 Japanese military killed and another 100,000 to 150,000 Japanese civilians, many of whom committed suicide.
That battle ended June 22, 1945, and within seven weeks the war was over.
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/ep-2386-can-iran-hit-the-us"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="size-large wp-image-974957" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-1024x171.webp" alt="DailyWire+" width="1024" height="171" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-1024x171.webp 1024w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-300x50.webp 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-768x128.webp 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-1536x256.webp 1536w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-2048x341.webp 2048w" sizes=" (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px" /></a>
This sort of activity isn&#8217;t uncommon, as America&#8217;s enemies realize that they are in their final hours.
The Battle of the Bulge was Hitler&#8217;s final attempt to stave off defeat. It was bloody. It was terrible. And Hitler lost.
At the end of the Gulf War, actually, even after a cease-fire had been declared, the Iraqi Hammurabi Republican Guard Division attacked the U.S. 24th Infantry Division. That was a large-scale mistake, and the U.S. ended up destroying nearly 200 tanks and erasing the Hammurabi Division entirely. But that was sort of the last gasp.
It&#8217;s quite common.
In the 2001 war in Afghanistan, the final Taliban stand, before the launch of their large-scale insurgent warfare strategy that lasted years, was something called Operation Anaconda. That&#8217;s where the Taliban fighters dug in in the mountains, and then they tried to engage U.S. forces. This was in 2002, and they lost.
The losing side very often will launch a last stand, a final push, or pull out all the stops.
That&#8217;s what we&#8217;re actually watching right now. The question is whether Iran&#8217;s activity represents the death throes of the regime or the reconsolidation of regime power.
The answer is not up to Iran. It&#8217;s up to the United States and Israel.
The only hope for the Iranian regime right now is that the United States and Israel somehow stop in their tracks before the Iranian regime suffers irreparable damage.
That is precisely why American enemies make that final push. It&#8217;s the last-gasp attempt to prevent the increasingly inevitable.
Iran is a terrorist regime, and so it&#8217;s pursuing three lines of terror tactics. One terror tactic is targeting the American homeland; a second is targeting the Strait of Hormuz and other Gulf oil supplies, and the third is targeting our allies.
<h3>First: The American Homeland</h3>
Yesterday, ABC News reported that the FBI has warned police departments about the possibility of an Iranian drone attack on American soil. According to the FBI, “As of early February 2026, Iran allegedly aspired to conduct a surprise attack using unmanned aerial vehicles from an unidentified vessel off the coast of the United States homeland, specifically against unspecified targets in California.”
President Trump said, “We&#8217;ve got our eyes on the terrorists.” Asked, “Have you been briefed about how many Iran sleeper cells there could be inside the U.S. right now?” he answered, “I have been and a lot of people came in through Biden with his stupid open border, but we know where most of them are. We&#8217;ve got our eye on all of them.”
The president is not wrong about the open border. The president also added that when it comes to these threats, all we can really do is take them as they come, which, of course, is the reality.
None of this should be a major shock. Iran has infiltrated South and Latin America. That is one of the reasons that the Trump administration moved against Venezuela, which was the center of Iranian activity in the Western Hemisphere under Nicolas Maduro, now a treasured guest of President Trump in prison. Iran and Venezuela even signed a 20-year cooperation agreement, and that included drones and missiles shipped from Iran to Venezuela.  
<h3>Second: The Threat To The Strait Of Hormuz</h3>
This is making a lot of headlines because it should. Iran has been firing ordnance at oil tankers that have been shipping through the Strait of Hormuz. 
But here&#8217;s the point. If you leave the regime in place, a regime that is increasingly powerful and can choke off that waterway any time it wants, it doesn&#8217;t make things better. 
The Wall Street Journal <a href="https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/ending-iran-war-quickly-carries-big-risks-for-the-u-s-and-allies-60c003de?utm_source=chatgpt.com">stated:</a> 
<blockquote>Leaving in place Iran’s theocratic regime—angry, defiant and in possession of its nuclear stockpile and what remains of its arsenal of missiles and drones—would essentially grant Tehran control over the world’s energy markets. It would also sacrifice the security of America’s partners and allies, and possibly make another, more devastating, regional war likely.</blockquote>
Right now, President Trump is holding down oil prices largely by talking about the incipient end of the war through the release of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. But the problem with talking about the end of the war is that it&#8217;s the kind of talk that actually emboldens the Iranians to increase their attacks on shipping, hoping that exerting more pressure on the Strait of Hormuz will force President Trump to stop.
What would be really, really helpful here would be America&#8217;s Gulf allies. Saudis, UAE, Qatar: None of them has actually engaged in action against Iran, even though they&#8217;re the ones who are getting truly pounded. You know what they could do? They could increase their pumping. They could pump to areas not controlled by Iran, such as the west of Saudi Arabia.
Iran has fired far more ordnance at the UAE than it has fired at Israel. If our allies are not going to join us offensively in the fight, they could at least relieve pressure on the oil markets created by the Iranian attacks. We are defending them.
<h3>Third: Terrorizing Our Allies</h3>
Which brings us to the third tentacle of Iranian terror, terror against our allies. Iran knows that the entry of the Saudis and the UAE directly into the war would be quite bad for them. And they know that the Saudis and UAE could help the United States calm world markets. That would allow the U.S.-Israel operation to continue, which is why they&#8217;ve been firing more missiles at the Gulf states than at Israel, trying to convince them to cower in fear.
 Israel has been targeted with 550 strikes by Iran. That is 14% of all strikes. Kuwait has been targeted with 24%, UAE with 44% of all strikes. Bahrain has been hit with almost as many strikes as Israel, and Saudi Arabia has been hit with 176.
Qatar is low on the list because, obviously, Qatar and Iran are half-allies.
Iran has been taking indirect counteraction against Israel. They&#8217;ve been using their proxy, Hezbollah. Hezbollah has been absolutely shellacked by Israel over the last couple of years, since the pager operation, the killing of Hassan Nasrallah, and the ground operation in Lebanon. Iran is hoping that drawing Israeli resources toward Lebanon might somehow save the Iranian government. They&#8217;re counting on the Lebanese government to back down, because the Lebanese government could theoretically exert some sort of pressure or push the Americans to stop Israel. That is why overnight rockets were raining on northern Israel.
If the Lebanese government doesn&#8217;t stop Hezbollah from its offensive action, if Israel is forced to stop its destruction of Hezbollah yet again, that would be a disaster for the region&#8217;s Christians. Lebanon used to be a Christian country before it was wrecked by the Palestine Liberation Organization, before it was wrecked by the Iranians through Hezbollah. Hezbollah is moving to destroy Lebanon&#8217;s Christian population.
Ordering Hezbollah to attack Israel is another sign of a last gasp.
What does all this mean?
It means that in the end, only the true collapse or serious damage leading to the collapse of the Iranian government will bring lasting victory. That&#8217;s what it means. 
Which is why President Trump correctly says we have to finish the job.
“As we end this threat to America and the world, we don&#8217;t want to leave early. We have to finish the job, right?” <a href="https://nypost.com/2026/03/11/world-news/trump-says-us-must-finish-the-job-in-virtually-destroyed-iran-dont-want-to-leave-early/">he told</a> a cheering crowd. 
He is correct. We actually have to finish the job. And the goals spelled out by the administration are clear: ending the missile threat, ending the nuclear threat, and ending support of terrorism. Leaving an Iranian regime in power, or at least not seriously destabilized or weakened, would likely encourage China to take aggressive action against Taiwan. 
It is astonishing to me to see the level of uproar over a war that has lasted less than two weeks with extremely low American casualties, by any historic comparison. If China understands that the American attention span is so short that we can&#8217;t even sustain a serious offensive action with low cost for longer than a few weeks, they will know they can move. 
Not only that, if we don&#8217;t do what we can while President Trump, who actually has stones, is president, then Iran likely will come back, mainly because weaker people will be president. People like Barack Obama, Joe Biden, or pretty much anyone else, because Trump has been uniquely strong on this score. 
President Trump is not wrong to call this out. He <a href="https://x.com/clashreport/status/2031840956639567928">stated</a>: 
<blockquote>“We don&#8217;t want to go back every two years. There&#8217;ll be some day when you don&#8217;t have me as president, you&#8217;ll have perhaps a weak, pathetic person like we&#8217;ve had in the past. Like Barack Hussein Obama, who signed one of the worst deals ever with Iran, where they were going to give up everything. Remember when he filled up a 757 with billions of dollars of cash and sent it to Iran? People forget that. That&#8217;s when I realized the presidency is very powerful. When you could put over $1 billion in an airplane and fly it over and give it to a foreign country that&#8217;s your enemy. How stupid was that?” </blockquote>
The president is not wrong. 
If you want to end threats to America, you actually have to end them.

TOPSHOT-IRAQ-IRAN-US-ISRAEL-WAR

Death Throes Of A Regime

Ben Shapiro

Drones

Middle East

U.S. Military

U.S. Gulf Coast heavy grades continued to surge on Friday as the Iran conflict spurred several Middle Eastern producers of heavy crude to curtail production and drove buyers to scoop up U.S. barrels.
Prices of Mars sour crude, the flagship crude produced in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico and favored by refiners globally, traded at a $11 premium to U.S. benchmark West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude on Friday, brokers said. That was the highest since April 2020, and up $4 from Thursday.
Just a week ago it traded at a premium of $1.50.
Other heavy grades such as the Heavy Louisiana Sweet and the West Texas Sour also rose.
Benchmark crude oil prices have surged since the initial attacks last week, with Brent crude settling at $92.69 a barrel, its highest level since October 2023 on Friday.
The effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz has forced several countries, including Iraq, to curb output. The strait is a key route for medium and heavy sour crude from the Persian Gulf, and those flows are now largely cut off. Additional production cuts announced in Kuwait on Friday also helped lift Mars prices, a trader said.
“Refiners that rely on these grades will need to find similar, or roughly similar, alternatives to replace the lost barrels, so Mars and other U.S. Gulf sour heavies and mediums are natural substitutes and are getting bid up aggressively,” Kpler lead Americas oil analyst Matt Smith said, adding that buyers, especially in Asia, are scrambling for more of these medium and heavy crude barrels.
&#8220;This time of year also marks the shift from winter into driving season, when demand typically rises across all crude grades,&#8221; said Tim Snyder, chief economist at Matador Economics, adding that ultimately the supply disruption caused by war was driving prices.
&#8220;In the short term we will continue to see these grades rise until we see the Strait of Hormuz open up,&#8221; Snyder said.
(Reporting by Siddharth Cavale in New York and Georgina McCartney in Houston; Editing by David Gregorio)

Iran Conflict Boosts U.S. Gulf Oil Prices To Highest Since 2020

Gulf of America

U.S.

Global oil prices spiked on Monday as the United States and Israel continued a joint military operation targeting Iran&#8217;s military infrastructure.
Global benchmark Brent crude oil <a href="https://www.marketwatch.com/investing/future/brn00?countrycode=uk&amp;gaa_at=eafs&amp;gaa_n=AWEtsqe4k1-WtbbEc0_rDe9RmjIzBeQ_NbvsmIuohb4DQSo55Be0bfuc1Ez2yJhY6Pc%3D&amp;gaa_ts=69a5b024&amp;gaa_sig=kegHiaf_xsPW94kPXb2xUx2YgsMT9F6cMvHsnXelmzUTlyMm_8GalBG_mAiBT6m4gV0Q7YYn6j8miOFnbJ_EGA%3D%3D">jumped</a> from Friday&#8217;s close of $73.21 per barrel to more than $80 at one point before settling around $78.46, a gain of more than 7%. The prices could jump even more if maritime traffic through the Strait of Hormuz continues to be disrupted. Every day, about one-fifth of the world’s oil and liquefied natural gas passes through the strait, according to Bloomberg. 
Citigroup analysts <a href="https://finance.yahoo.com/news/oil-prices-could-rise-further-075821138.html?guccounter=1&amp;guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&amp;guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAAoLAnlJSGqDKV19nUMQVFUjg_rb1vbJFDoZPVJc39rwlciwX3Fz7sGJq7a-EYDBNtF52AuMGdG8afsugkS4XehHbbJuiDYm3OsVaFR-vWX1KJMSgAEaTnttSdVSAv9m5b74evywcd3KoDlT5Hm5G_ki9I9WT8LqGZBg6RtFXBuK">said</a> there was about a 20% chance that oil could jump to $120 a barrel if the war escalates and maritime flows are significantly disrupted. 
The United States Maritime Administration issued a warning Saturday advising ships to stay clear of the Strait of Hormuz, the Persian Gulf, and the Gulf of Oman. 
“It is recommended that vessels keep clear of this area if possible. Any U.S.-flagged, owned, or crewed commercial vessels that are operating in these areas should maintain a standoff of 30 nautical miles from U.S. military vessels to reduce the risk of being mistaken as a threat,” the administration said. 
Multiple oil tankers in the region have been damaged since fighting began, Reuters <a href="https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/three-tankers-damaged-gulf-us-iran-conflict-escalates-2026-03-01/">reported</a>. 
Oil producers in the region have also shut down operations amid strikes from Iran. In Saudi Arabia, Aramco <a href="https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/iran-israel-us-strikes-2026/card/saudi-oil-refinery-halts-operations-after-drone-attack-rBCZJgEmRa2hhV4xKb9o?gaa_at=eafs&amp;gaa_n=AWEtsqdVA7f01FpRHiDTdvKgQyx298PC0SvI-4yLSfvTx2dsJpziEKt5CUhuoP23pC0%3D&amp;gaa_ts=69a5ae00&amp;gaa_sig=U6cNYNwbcMKuGRYsPJYChw_TORGN6R2j6JBRYfrSFheMLHiz9T6f9VXmJitWw8PiBP5jzFBQYWzuRCSyN3_Y9g%3D%3D">shut down</a> its Ras Tanura refinery as a precautionary measure after one of its storage facilities was reportedly struck by an Iranian drone. The facility produces around 550,000 barrels of oil per day.
Other producers in the Iraqi-Kurdistan region have also <a href="https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/saudi-aramco-shuts-ras-tanura-refinery-after-drone-strike-source-says-2026-03-02/">paused</a> production for precautionary purposes. 
QatarEnergy announced that it was pausing production amid attacks on its facilities. QatarEnergy is the world&#8217;s largest liquefied natural-gas producer. That announcement came after a strike on Qatar’s Ras Laffan complex, where it processes natural gas. European natural gas prices jumped by as much as 50% following the announcement.
It remains unclear how long the U.S.-Israel operation will continue, though President Donald Trump has said it could go on for weeks.

Gas Stations As Oil Jumps Most In Four Years As Markets React to Conflict In Iran

The Impact Of Operation Epic Fury On Oil And Beyond The Battlefield

Some stupid people in the Senate decided to make a spectacle of themselves yesterday when they hosted Secretary of State Marco Rubio to give testimony about Venezuela before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
Secretary Rubio is very, very good at his job. And so many of these senators are not.
One of the amazing things about American politics is how many Americans believe there are true conspiracies operating at a high level in American politics. All you have to do is meet our senators and members of Congress in order to know how dumb this is.
Politics is significantly more like “Veep” than it is like “House of Cards.”
Illinois Democrat senator Tammy Duckworth — not one of the sharper tools in the drawer — had a spat with Rubio on whether war needed to be declared in order to perform strikes on drug boats in the Caribbean.
“These non-state actors, who possess state-like capabilities in terms of their weaponry, pose a grave danger to the United States,” Rubio stated. “I don’t think any American would dispute that we have cartels that pose a threat to the United States.”
“You&#8217;re saying that he (President Trump) can invoke this wartime power?” she queried, adding that the wartime power had only been invoked three times: the War of 1812, World War I, and World War II.
“I&#8217;m here to discuss foreign policy and what&#8217;s in the realm of the Department of State,” Rubio replied. “I think your question would be better directed at the Department of Justice. &#8230; You&#8217;re asking me a question about the domestic application of a law that&#8217;s best directed to the Department of Justice.”
“It’s not a complication,” she said, somehow confusing words.
“I can tell you that the United States is most certainly confronting terrorist and criminal organizations operating in our hemisphere that pose a grave danger to the United States. Anyone who believes that gangs that flood our country with fentanyl or cocaine are not threats to the United States, is not living in reality, and certainly does not reflect the opinion of most Americans,” he fired back.
Owned.
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/ep-2357-new-tape-pretti-s-not-so-nonviolent-ice-protest-past?elementPosition=2&amp;row=5&amp;rowHeadline=Latest+Episodes&amp;rowType=Horizontal+Show+Episodes+Carousel"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="size-large wp-image-974957" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-1024x171.webp" alt="DailyWire+" width="1024" height="171" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-1024x171.webp 1024w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-300x50.webp 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-768x128.webp 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-1536x256.webp 1536w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-2048x341.webp 2048w" sizes=" (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px" /></a>
Then there was Senator Chris Van Hollen, who is just a mockery. Every time you see him, you think to yourself,  “It&#8217;s not possible for him to become more of a cucumber with eyeballs.” And yet there he is, becoming more of a cucumber with eyeballs, straight from the garden.
Van Hollen suggested it was oil executives pushing the change in Venezuela, saying, “ Mr. Secretary, simple yes or no question: Were you with President Trump during any of those conversations he had with people with oil interests in Venezuela about the possibility of deposing Maduro?”
“That&#8217;s not a simple yes or no question, but I can answer quickly,” Rubio responded. “And that is the president always elicits opinions from all sorts of people, including, for example, Chevron has an active license in Venezuela. They operate in Venezuela. They&#8217;ve been doing so even when the sanctions were in place. So of course you would ask Chevron, “What is your opinion of Delcey Rodriguez?” “What is your opinion of their economy and of their prospects?” But the notion that somehow the president authorized this challenge at the urging of oil executives is absurd. That never happened.”
“Mr. Secretary, I&#8217;m asking whether you were with the president?” Van Hollen persisted.
“That never happened. I couldn&#8217;t be with him because it never happened,” Rubio fired back. “The oil executives were not involved whatsoever in any of the planning on this matter.”
Owned.
By the way, Senator Chris Van Hollen, if you&#8217;re going to ask a question you don&#8217;t already know the answer to, you&#8217;re doing it wrong. (That is the first rule of lawyering: Don&#8217;t ask questions for which you don&#8217;t already know the answer.)
Rubio went on to make clear that criminal organizations are endemic to the Caribbean, Central America, and South America, saying:
<blockquote>We have a real reality in our region of these trans-national criminal terrorist organizations — that in many cases possess weapons that you ascribe to a nation state, not to a gang — who pose a grave threat to the national security of the United States, but also to the stability of the region. If you walk through the region, what is the primary threat in Colombia? Transnational criminal organizations. What is the threat to Mexico? What is the threat to the Caribbean basin? 
These groups have to be confronted. They have to be confronted forcefully. What&#8217;s the threat in Haiti? The systemic collapse. And that is these criminal gangs that basically control territory and threaten the ability to even form a government there in that regard. So it&#8217;s endemic throughout the region, and it ultimately impacts the United States through mass migration, through drug trafficking and other related criminal organizations. And so we need to have a force posture that can confront that.  </blockquote>
Senator Rand Paul, on the Republican side of the aisle, targeted Rubio over the Venezuela operation, calling it unconstitutional. “If a foreign country bombed our air defense missiles, captured and removed our president and blockaded our country, would that be considered an act of war?” he asked. 
“I will acknowledge you&#8217;ve been very consistent on all these points the entire career, no matter who&#8217;s in charge. I will point to two things. The first is it&#8217;s hard for us to conceive that an operation that lasted about 4.5 hours and was a law enforcement operation to capture someone we don&#8217;t recognize as a head of state, indicted in the United States, or wanted with a $50 million bounty —” Rubio began.  
“If it only took four hours to take our president, very short, nobody dies on the other side. Nobody dies on our side. It&#8217;s perfect. Would it be an act of war?” Paul asked. 
“We just don&#8217;t believe that this operation comes anywhere close to the constitutional definition of a war,” Rubio asserted. 
“But would it be an act of war if someone did it to us? Nobody dies. Few casualties. They&#8217;re in and out. Boom. It&#8217;s a perfect military operation. Would that be an act of war? Of course, it would be an act of war. I&#8217;m probably the most anti-war person in the Senate, and I would vote to declare war if someone invaded our country and took our president. So I think we need to at least acknowledge this is a one-way argument, one-way arguments that don&#8217;t rebound, that you can&#8217;t apply to yourselves, that cannot be universally applicable, are bad arguments,” Paul contended. 
Here’s why Senator Paul’s argument is bad: Who cares whether Venezuela considers it an act of war? The question is whether, constitutionally, you require a declaration of war in order to do this thing. Is it a war for the United States to perform a law enforcement grab-and-snatch of a person we do not recognize as the legitimate, rightful leader of a country? Do we need to declare war in America?  
Who cares what Venezuelans think about it? I don&#8217;t care what Nigerians think about. I don&#8217;t care what Israelis think about it. I don’t care what anybody thinks about it. We&#8217;re Americans; the American Constitution applies.  
The question that ought to be asked is not whether we would consider it an act of war if somebody did it to us; if we did, we would then have to wait and go through the constitutional mechanisms of declaring war. That&#8217;s what the question is about. It is not whether what we just did to Venezuela is an adversarial action. Of course it&#8217;s an adversarial action. The question is, constitutionally speaking, do you have to declare war in order to do this thing? Not whether in some random Platonic universe this is considered a definitional “act of war.”
That&#8217;s the point Rubio was making: Make the case that the operation constitutes a war under the definition of war in the Constitution, as opposed to a policing action or a law enforcement action.
It&#8217;s a cheap rhetorical trick that Senator Paul used there.
Rubio was asked about Cuba and said the Trump administration would not involve itself in an active regime change in Cuba. They would, of course, love to see the regime fall.
Hawaii Senator Brian Schatz asked, “Will you make a public commitment today to rule out U.S. regime change in Cuba?”
“Regime change?” Rubio answered. “Oh, no. I think we would love to see the regime change. That doesn&#8217;t mean that we&#8217;re going to make a change, but we would love to see a change. There&#8217;s no doubt about the fact that it would be of great benefit to the United States if Cuba was no longer governed by an autocratic regime.” 
“But you know what we mean by regime change,” Schatz persisted.  “We don&#8217;t mean I wish someone else were in charge. When we talk about regime change, we&#8217;re talking about using the power of the United States, usually kinetic power, but often other kinds of coercion. I&#8217;m not even saying that that&#8217;s always not in our interests; I&#8217;m just saying, I&#8217;m not asking you whether we would prefer a different kind of government. I&#8217;m asking whether you are trying to precipitate the fall of the current regime.”
“Yeah, but that&#8217;s statutory. The Helms-Burton Act, the U.S. embargo on Cuba, is codified. It was codified in law, and it requires regime change in order for us to lift the embargo,” Rubio pointed out.
Owned.
Senator Tim Kaine, the long-forgotten vice presidential candidate for Hillary Clinton, went after Rubio because Donald Trump supposedly said Iceland and not Greenland in his Davos speech. “We&#8217;re not mad at Iceland. They haven&#8217;t cost us any money. The president just mistook the two countries for each other, correct?” Kaine said.
Rubio then gave a deathless, hilarious reply, with a wink at the recent past: “Yeah, he meant to say Greenland. But I think we&#8217;re all familiar with the presidents who have verbal stumbles. We&#8217;ve had presidents like that before, some made a lot more than this one.”
Owned.
Rubio was also asked about Iran and again pointed out that the people of Iran deserve better than the current leadership:
<blockquote>And the core problem they face, unlike the protests you saw in the past on some other topics, is that they don&#8217;t have a way to address the core complaints of the protesters, which is that their economy’s in collapse. And the reason why there&#8217;s economies and collapse is because they spend all their money and all their resources building weapons and sponsoring terrorist groups around the world, instead of reinvesting it back into their society and as a result, have taken on massive global sanctions, which has isolated their economy and their country.
And so that&#8217;s what the Iranian people are demanding, is that they stop doing that and start caring about them and get these sanctions off of them, and this regime is unwilling to do it. So the core challenges, the protests may have ebbed, but they will spark up again in the future because this regime, unless they are willing to change and or leave, has no way of addressing the legitimate and consistent complaints of the people of Iran who deserve better. </blockquote>
Has there ever been a better Secretary of State?

US-VENEZUELA-CONFLICT-POLITICS-CONGRESS-RUBIO

The Adult In The Room: Rubio Owns The Senate

Chris Van Hollen

Marco Rubio

Rand Paul

U.S. Senate

Venezuela

Michigan&#8217;s leftist Attorney General Dana Nessel filed a <a href="https://www.michigan.gov/ag/-/media/Project/Websites/AG/releases/2026/January/Michigan-Energy-Affordability-Complaint.pdf?rev=5fe0d3cf29174f30a7f4853ef1eb0c22&amp;hash=3242B297D226DCDD835DF7D328490E32">lawsuit</a> on behalf of Michigan residents on Friday, arguing that multiple oil companies violated antitrust laws and conspired to harm the renewable energy and electric vehicle markets.
The lawsuit <a href="https://www.michigan.gov/ag/news/press-releases/2026/01/23/attorney-general-nessel-files-lawsuit-against-fossil-fuel-defendants">alleges</a> that BP, Chevron, ExxonMobil, Shell, and the oil industry association, the American Petroleum Institute, acted &#8220;as a cartel&#8221; to go after renewable energy sources and &#8220;restrain the emergence of electric vehicles.&#8221; The alleged conspiracy has caused Michigan residents to &#8220;suffer artificially high home and transportation energy costs,&#8221; according to Nessel.
&#8220;Specifically, by suppressing innovation and investment in renewable energy, EVs, and EV infrastructure, Defendants have artificially reduced the output of electricity as a substitute for gasoline and other energy sources,&#8221; the lawsuit states. &#8220;This restraint not only eliminated competitive pressure that would have lowered prices, but also deprived Michigan consumers of meaningful choice, forcing them to buy primary and transportation energy products at supracompetitive prices and with additional costs in the form of negative externalities.&#8221;
Critics of the EV push have argued the opposite of what Michigan claims in the lawsuit, saying that in recent years, the federal government and some state governments have artificially propped up the EV market in an attempt to encourage Americans to give up gas-powered vehicles.
American automakers, such as Michigan-based Ford and General Motors, have recently <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/ford-delays-production-of-new-electric-vehicles-by-years-as-consumers-sour-on-evs">dialed back</a> their investments in EV production due to <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/gms-ev-struggles-trigger-mass-layoffs-in-three-states">low demand</a> and high manufacturing costs. Last year, the EV market took a hit when President Donald Trump ended the Biden-era EV tax credit, which encouraged Americans to buy alternatives to gas- and diesel-fueled vehicles.
Nessel&#8217;s lawsuit accuses the oil companies of violating the Sherman Antitrust Act, the Clayton Antitrust Act, and the Michigan Antitrust Reform Act, which prohibit monopolies and anti-competitive practices. The state of Michigan is demanding a jury trial.
&#8220;Michigan is facing an energy affordability crisis as our home energy costs skyrocket and consumers are left without affordable options for transportation. Whether you own a home, a small business, or run a large corporation, rising energy and transportation costs harm everyone,&#8221; Nessel <a href="https://x.com/dananessel/status/2014782329961509273">said</a>.
The Daily Wire reached out to each of the oil companies accused by Michigan in the lawsuit.
Chevron counsel Theodore J. Boutrous Jr. said that courts have dismissed similar lawsuits in multiple states, adding that Michigan&#8217;s lawsuit &#8220;ignores the fact that Michigan is highly dependent on oil and gas to support the state’s automakers and workers,” The Detroit Free Press <a href="https://www.freep.com/story/money/business/michigan/2026/01/23/michigan-attorney-general-dana-nessel-lawsuit-conspiracy-oil-companies/88298387007/">reported</a>.
Ryan Meyers, general counsel for the American Petroleum Institute, added, &#8220;These baseless lawsuits are a coordinated campaign against an industry that powers everyday life, drives America’s economy, and is actively reducing emissions. We continue to believe that energy policy belongs in Congress, not a patchwork of courtrooms.”

Dana Nessel

Michigan Dem AG Sues Oil Companies, Calls Them ‘A Cartel’ That Conspired To Stifle EV Market

Michigan

For those who accuse the Trump administration of expansionist ambitions because of the attack on Venezuela that achieved the extradition of the tyrannical dictator and faux president Nicolás Maduro, it would be instructive to remember who the real expansionist was: Maduro.
Maduro had designs on the <a href="https://www.csis.org/analysis/essequibo-pressure-cooker-runaway-nationalism-and-maduros-compellence-strategy">Essequibo region</a> — an oil-resource-rich territory in Guyana — which comprises two-thirds of Guyana’s territory. Despite a long-standing status quo, Maduro had laid claim to the region following the discovery of massive offshore oil deposits by an ExxonMobil-led consortium.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
&quot;Trump&#39;s capture of Maduro is IMPERIALISM! How dare he!&quot;
Maduro tried to annex something like 3/4s of the neighboring country of Guyana just last year because oil was discovered offshore. But please tell me more about the horrors of imperialism <a href="https://t.co/aGSkOscmc9">pic.twitter.com/aGSkOscmc9</a>
&mdash; Will Chamberlain (@willchamberlain) <a href="https://twitter.com/willchamberlain/status/2007664156686651397?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 4, 2026</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
In 2023, Maduro accused Guyana’s president Irfaan Ali of “hypocrisy and false victimization,” adding, “President Irfaan Ali, enough of lies and of trying to hide the historical truth that weighs on the dispute over the Essequibo territory, whose only means of resolution, as you well know, is the Geneva Agreement of 1966. The steps your government is taking violate international legality and jeopardize peace in the region.”
That was a lie; the 1966 Geneva Agreement <a href="https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%20561/volume-561-I-8192-English.pdf">stated</a> that if Venezuela and Guyana did not resolve the issue, “they shall refer the decision as to the means of settlement to an appropriate international organ upon which they both agree or, failing agreement on this point, to the secretary-general of the United Nations.”
Guyana did exactly that, as the Voice of America <a href="https://www.voanews.com/a/fact-check-venezuelan-maduro-baselessly-accuses-guyana-s-ali-of-violating-treaty-of-geneva/7290690.html?utm_source=chatgpt.com">reported</a>.
Maduro’s strategy included referendums and legislative moves aimed at the &#8220;defense&#8221; of Essequibo, which international bodies like the OAS and CARICOM labeled illegal and a &#8220;crime of aggression.&#8221; In addition, Venezuelan naval vessels entered disputed waters near ExxonMobil’s operations.
In response to these expansionist moves, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio <a href="https://www.wsls.com/business/2025/03/27/rubio-visits-guyana-as-part-of-his-caribbean-tour-to-promote-energy-independence-and-curb-migration">issued</a> explicit, high-stakes warnings to the Venezuelan &#8220;narco-trafficking regime.&#8221; In March 2025, on a Caribbean tour to strengthen ties and promote energy independence, he stated that aggressive action by Venezuela “would be a very bad day for Venezuela,” emphasizing consequences for “adventurism” and aggression.
Rubio’s strategy included:
<ul style="font-weight: 400;">
<li>Military Cooperation: Signing security agreements to enhance intelligence sharing and conducting joint naval exercises between the U.S. Navy and Guyana.</li>
<li>Economic Pressure: Implementing severe sanctions and tariffs on countries that imported Venezuelan oil, aiming to dismantle the regime’s financial lifeblood.</li>
<li>Strategic Alliances: Promoting Guyana as a key partner to wean the Caribbean off Venezuelan energy, effectively neutralizing Maduro’s regional influence.</li>
</ul>
Meanwhile, Maduro’s then-vice president, Delcy Rodríguez, maintained that Venezuela would never cede its claim.

Protest In Caracas In Support Of Nicolas Maduro After Being Labelled By The US Government As The Leader Of “Cartel De Los Soles”

Maduro Was The Real Expansionist Threat — Not The Trump Administration

Guyana

Nicolas Maduro

The global conversation around artificial intelligence is framed as a technology race.
Yes, America is in an AI race, but that race will be over before it even starts if we do not secure reliable fuel to power it.
From a technical advancement standpoint, the AI race is a challenge of intellect: algorithms, chips, and computing architecture.
From an energy standpoint, however, it is a question of wisdom: Do we have the wisdom to make the right decisions now, to prioritize and properly utilize the abundant, affordable, and reliable energy resources we already possess?
AI runs on massive, continuous amounts of electricity. The nations that can deliver power at scale, at the lowest cost, and with the highest reliability will lead not only in AI, but in manufacturing, economic growth, and national security.
China understands this reality. In fact, China now generates more than twice as much electricity as the United States and continues to expand power infrastructure at a pace the U.S. has not matched in years.
If America intends to lead in AI, we must prioritize natural gas. It is the only fuel source today that is readily deployable, scalable, reliable, and affordable.
For the first time in more than half a century, U.S. electricity demand is growing at a sustained rate. The Department of Energy estimates the U.S. will need 50 to 150 gigawatts of new electric capacity within the next decade, describing the challenge as the Manhattan Project of our time. 
A single large data center can consume as much power as a heavy industrial facility. Data centers are modern-day industrial factories, operating 24/7 and requiring uninterrupted baseload power.
We must use wisdom when locating these facilities. Power generation can be built almost anywhere, but fuel cannot. Our grandfathers understood this. Steel mills and petrochemical plants were built near power plants, and power plants were built near fuel sources.
When new power demand is located far from the fuel source, costs rise, timelines stretch, and risks multiply. Long-haul transmission adds expense, energy loss, permitting complexity, disruption, and public opposition. Electricity is expensive not only to generate, but to move.
The most efficient solution is also the simplest: build new power demand on top of the fuel supply.
<div id="attachment_1022749" style="width: 874px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-1022749" class="size-large wp-image-1022749" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/01/GettyImages-2242629476-864x576.jpg" alt="The former General Motors and Foxconn factory in Lordstown, Ohio, US, on Thursday, Oct. 23, 2025. In August, Foxconn announced it had stuck a deal to sell the giant facility to SoftBank, with the two companies planning to start manufacturing data center equipment on the same site where GM cars including the Chevy Impala once came off the assembly line. Photographer: Kyle Grillot/Bloomberg via Getty Images" width="864" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/01/GettyImages-2242629476-864x576.jpg 864w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/01/GettyImages-2242629476-300x200.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/01/GettyImages-2242629476-768x512.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/01/GettyImages-2242629476.jpg 1024w" sizes=" (max-width: 864px) 100vw, 864px" />Kyle Grillot/Bloomberg via Getty Images</div>
There are two regions in the U.S. that are uniquely equipped. More than 80% of U.S. natural gas production is concentrated in two strategic regions: the Gulf Coast and the Shale Crescent USA (Ohio, West Virginia, and Pennsylvania). If these three states were a country, they would be the third-largest natural gas producer in the world, producing roughly one-third of all U.S. natural gas.
Natural gas in the Shale Crescent is among the lowest-cost in the industrialized world, roughly three to four times cheaper than Europe and Asia, and among the lowest-priced in the United States.
For high-load users like data centers, AI infrastructure, and advanced manufacturing, proximity to reliable baseload power is a strategic advantage.
Across the country, data centers are already struggling to secure power. Utilities are issuing moratoria, interconnection queues stretch into the next decade, and grid operators warn that demand is outpacing supply. 

America cannot out-AI China if China out-powers the United States.
The path forward is not mysterious, but it does require political will and wisdom. Natural gas must be treated as a strategic national asset, and the lowest-cost, lowest-risk path forward is to locate new data centers and power-intensive infrastructure directly on top of the fuel supply.
If we make that choice now, we can secure the energy foundation our AI future requires.
* * *
Nathan Lord is the President of Shale Crescent USA, a non-profit organization whose mission is to encourage business growth and create high wage jobs in Ohio, West Virginia, and Pennsylvania. Nathan is a graduate of Marietta College and earned his MBA from Liberty University.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Menu