Showing posts sorted by date for query AFRICA. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by date for query AFRICA. Sort by relevance Show all posts

Tuesday, March 03, 2026


Iran war threatens Trump fight with inflation


By AFP
March 3, 2026


Economists expect US gas prices to rise following attacks on Iran and Tehran's retaliation - Copyright AFP Frederic J. BROWN


Beiyi SEOW

US-Israeli strikes in Iran, and Tehran’s retaliation, are set to trigger a surge in US gas prices with a potential knock-on inflationary hit that could pile pressure on President Donald Trump domestically as midterm elections approach.

Economists warn that costs at the gas pump — a politically sensitive issue — could jump in just days, while inflation risks would make the Federal Reserve more cautious of cutting interest rates.

The conflict started with strikes over the weekend that killed the Iranian supreme leader, and oil prices have soared as the war disrupted supplies.

The crucial Strait of Hormuz, through which 20 percent of global oil transits, has been effectively closed and energy infrastructure across the Middle East hit.

“Prices at the pump are likely to rise within days,” Oxford Economics lead analyst John Canavan told AFP.

Gas prices have been “slowly but steadily increasing since early January,” he said, adding that “retailers are typically quick to respond to any developments pushing prices higher.”

Already, the price of Brent crude has momentarily jumped to its highest level since July 2024.

Additional costs will stretch US households, threatening consumer spending which makes up two-thirds of US GDP, analysts say.

– ‘Pain point’ –

As steeper prices filter through the economy, this could mean higher fares on airlines and other modes of transport, alongside elevated logistic costs, said economist James Knightley of ING.

Even if the United States is self-sufficient in natural gas, these costs still take their cue from global markets. This means higher international prices could also push up electricity costs.

“This is undoubtedly going to be a pain point for the US economy,” Knightley said.

The US energy sector might get a boost but that could be offset by a hit to consumer confidence that is already weak from tariff and job security worries.

“If you’ve suddenly got to spend a whole lot more filling up your gas tank and paying more for your utility bills, that’s only going to intensify the pressure on consumer finances,” he said.

All of this could weigh on US economic growth if the war lasts for more than a couple of weeks, he added.

The Trump administration is likely wary and will try to mitigate energy price hikes, Nationwide chief economist Kathy Bostjancic told AFP.

“They know affordability is an issue for many households,” she said. “They’re very aware and would be sensitive that higher gasoline prices would negatively impact consumer confidence and sentiment.”

“That could show up in the voting booth in November,” she added.

– Fed caution –

For the US central bank, the risk of higher inflation and the chance of weakening growth and employment pull policymakers in different directions.

While the Fed would be inclined to keep interest rates elevated to rein in inflation, a deteriorating economy could trigger the need for cuts.

“We’ll have to wait and see,” New York Fed President John Williams told reporters Tuesday.

While the conflict affects prices, he said: “We’ll have to see how persistent this is and how long this is.”

Higher rates in the meantime would mean elevated borrowing costs, sustaining the pressure that firms and consumers face.

Bostjancic expects that if the rise in oil prices is largely contained and reverses soon, the Fed would have reason and room to cut rates still.

“We haven’t changed our baseline forecast yet,” she added. She expects two rate cuts in 2026, starting mid-year.

Inflation risks could make rate cuts “a difficult sell” for the Fed for now, said ING’s Knightley.

The bank has to “optimize policy for two very different goals” of low inflation and maximum employment, he added.

“I still think there is a case for rate cuts, but the near-term inflation dynamics mean that it’s more likely to be delayed,” he said.

Mideast war exposes fragile oil, gas dependency


By AFP
March 3, 2026


Image: © Saudi Aramco/AFP JOE LYNCH


Ali BEKHTAOUI

As in 2022 when Russia invaded Ukraine, the new war in the Middle East is exposing once again how far Europe and others lag in replacing imported fossil fuels with domestic solar and wind power, specialists say.

The Russian invasion in 2022 triggered a massive energy crisis, particularly in Europe, where gas prices — then largely dependent on imports from Russia — soared.

Four years later, the continent is instead importing liquid natural gas (LNG) in large volumes, notably from Qatar — one of the countries caught up in Iran’s retaliation against US and Israeli attacks.

Europe also remains dependent on oil from the Middle East, where ships have been blocked and sometimes targeted by Iranian strikes.

Regarding its energy security, “Europe is facing the biggest wake‑up call since the invasion in Ukraine”, said Ana Maria Jaller‑Makarewicz, analyst for the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA).

For Jan Rosenow, professor of energy and climate policy at the University of Oxford, the latest conflict prompted a sense of “deja vu”, recalling 2022.

“What this shows is that we haven’t really learned the lessons that we should have learned from that experience. When you look at the dependency rate of Europe on oil and gas — it hasn’t really gone down.”

– Energy transition –

Despite countries’ pledging to reduce their burning of planet-warming fossil fuels, Europe remains dependent on them for more than two-thirds of its energy consumption — primarily for vehicles, heating and industry — according to the International Energy Agency.

Only electricity generation has clearly decarbonised in recent years. Fossil fuels produced just 29 percent of the European Union’s electricity last year, according to research group Ember.

Across Europe, political appetite for further investment in renewable energy for the wider economy has faded.

Countries are far short of global targets for shifting away from fossil fuels despite pledges under the 2015 Paris climate agreement, with some countries — notably the United States — even rolling back commitments.

The new war meanwhile drove up oil prices by about seven percent on Monday, while European gas prices skyrocketed by more than 30 percent.

For climate leaders, this highlights the need to get the transition back on track.

“The global transition is still too slow,” United Nations climate chief Simon Stiell warned on LinkedIn.

Renewables, he wrote, are now “the obvious pathway to energy security and sovereignty”.

– Fossil fuel reliance –

Even if gas dependency has shifted from Russia to suppliers such as the United States, the fresh unrest exposes Europe’s “continued reliance on imported fossil fuels traded on volatile global markets”, said Simone Tagliapietra, a researcher at European think tank Bruegel.

“Rather than slowing down the low-carbon transition, the new tensions show that the deployment of clean, domestically produced energy sources should be accelerated,” he said.

“Only by reducing structural dependence on oil and LNG imports can Europe durably shield its economy from recurrent external shocks.”

Between 10 and 15 percent of Europe’s gas imports come from Qatar.

European gas prices jumped after QatarEnergy, the state‑owned energy company, announced a halt in LNG production following an Iranian drone attack.

“Historically, fossil fuels were promised to deliver… some form of freedom, some form of democracy, some form of growth, and above all, some form of security,” said Pauline Heinrichs, a climate diplomacy specialist at King’s College London.

“I think this illegal and unnecessary war is both a reminder that this is obviously false and, second, that this is, at least in security terms, an illusion.”


Will US oil companies be the big winners from the Iran war?

By AFP
March 3, 2026


Image: — © AFP/File Hussein FALEH


John BIERS

Energy prices have surged dramatically since the United States and Israel launched their attack on Iran Saturday, and that will almost certainly translate into bigger profits.

But the question remains whether the new war in the Middle East also leads to increased oilfield investment.



– What does the Middle East war mean for US oil industry profits? –



Geopolitical crises lift oil industry profits if a supply disruption causes commodity prices to spike. That’s what happened after Russia invaded Ukraine.

In the third quarter of 2022, ExxonMobil and Chevron reported more than $30 billion in profits between the two companies. The results were boosted by a surge in crude and natural gas prices.

Brent oil futures briefly surged above $85 a barrel Tuesday, while European natural gas prices reached their highest level in 2023.

These increases show the market’s response to the effective shutdown of the Strait of Hormuz, a waterway accounting for some 20 percent of global crude supplies. The jump in the natural gas market is due to QatarEnergy’s suspension of liquefied natural gas (LNG) production.

“Certainly, the producers get a benefit when prices go up like this,” said Again Capital’s John Kilduff. “This will definitely help their bottom lines.”

The question is whether commodity prices will stay high.



– Will US companies invest to produce more oil and natural gas? –



Energy industry analysts don’t expect companies to drill more wells or increase capital budgets unless they conclude the outages will be lengthy. Investments in projects that don’t come online for months or years requires confidence prices will stay high.

“What US companies would need to see would be a sustained higher price,” said Dan Pickering of Pickering Energy partners in Houston, who thinks oil prices could reach $100 a barrel if the Strait of Hormuz stays empty for a meaningful duration.

But such a lengthy outage is far from a sure thing.

President Donald Trump — closely attuned to the political implications of gasoline prices ahead of mid-term elections — said Tuesday that the US navy would escort oil tankers through the Strait of Hormuz if needed, and ordered Washington to provide insurance for shipping.

The announcement prompted a modest pullback in oil prices, which finished below session highs.

Oil prices could retreat further if the United States, China and other countries tap emergency stockpiles, said Ken Medlock, a fellow at the Baker Institute for Public Policy at Rice University in Houston.

Futures markets currently show oil prices retreating gradually in the second half of 2026, implying “the market is seeing it as a short-term” disruption, Medlock said.



– How much could US energy supply grow and where would investments go? –



While the US energy industry is poised to benefit from Middle East oil and gas outages, the United States “cannot simply ‘flip a switch’ to replace large, sudden Middle Eastern outages,” said Brian Kessens, portfolio manager at Tortoise Capital.

Some elements of the petroleum industry have already benefited from the upheaval. Kessens said refined products dislocated by the Hormuz outage has boosted profit margins for Gulf Coast refiners.

Other short-term winners include LNG exporters who have capacity not committed in contracts.

Despite this, “meaningful incremental supply typically requires months to years,” Kessens said.

Among the potential upstream oil and gas candidates, analysts said the most likely pick for incremental additional investment would be shale properties such as the Permian Basin in the US, where oil companies are already active and which have a shorter payback compared with other prospects.

“The focus would be on short-cycle, quick results activity. US shale, maybe a little bit of Venezuela,” Pickering said. “Then it would move to longer-term projects like exploration and offshore.”


Mideast war risks sending global economy into stagflation


By AFP
March 2, 2026


The duration of the conflict will be key to determining its impact on the global economy, say economists - Copyright US NAVY/AFP -


Sophie LAUBIE


An extended conflict in the Middle East after the US and Israel launched strikes on Iran could trigger global stagflation — a troublesome blend of high inflation and anaemic growth — due to spiking oil and gas prices, economists warned.



– Will there be an oil shock ? –



The conflict has nearly halted traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, through which around 20 percent of global seaborne oil passes, with several ships attacked.

Global oil prices shot higher on Monday, with the Brent crude international reference oil contract up nearly nine percent at $79.30 per barrel at 1410 GMT.

It briefly surpassed $80 per barrel earlier in the day, and was up considerably from the $61 per barrel at the start of the year.

Economist Sylvain Bersinger said the war risks “creating a third oil shock after those in 1973 and 1979 and the 2022 gas shock”.

Europe’s benchmark gas price shot more than 50 percent higher on Monday.

He said the price of oil could rise to $110 per barrel, but added that was no longer exceptional as oil prices had risen over $140 in 2008 and were above $100 in the 2010s.

Adam Hetts at asset manager Janus Henderson said that while oil prices would certainly rise, the increase should remain “at reasonable levels”.



– What impact on global trade? –



The conflict could act as a shock to trade “at the worst possible moment”, said economists at ING bank.

The global trading system is already under stress from US President Donald Trump’s tariff offensive as well as the fragmentation of supply chains since Covid and the war in Ukraine.

Moreover the closure of the Gulf airspace is disrupting aviation between European and Asia, they noted.

For Ruben Nizard, head of political risk research at Coface, a trade credit insurance company, this crisis could also “throw another wrench into the works by driving up maritime freight costs” and pushing up inflation.

“At the global level, this would open the door to an economic scenario of stagflation,” he added, referring to a situation with high inflation and weak or non-existent growth.



– What impact on the global economy? –



According to economists at Natixis bank, a prolonged disruption of traffic in the Strait of Hormuz “would have major implications for markets, but also for inflation dynamics and overall economic stability”.

They added that “China would be particularly affected by this war.”

Cyrille Poirier-Coutansais, director of the research department at the French Navy’s Centre for Strategic Studies, agreed that China is particularly dependent upon oil shipped through the Strait of Hormuz.

“The question is whether there will be enough fuel to keep the world’s factory running,” he told AFP.

For the economist Sylvain Bersinger the impact on Europe will likely be less than the 2022 gas shock, which would help France in particular to avoid a recession.

In a sign of declining investor confidence, the interest rate on European sovereign bonds climbed on Monday.

The yield on 10-year German government bonds, the benchmark in the eurozone, stood at 2.70 percent in afternoon trading, compared with 2.64 percent on Friday.



– What risks in a long war? –



The intensity and duration of the conflict will be key in determining its impact.

“In a prolonged conflict, the combination of higher energy costs, disrupted logistics, and a generalised confidence shock would constitute a meaningful drag on global trade volumes at precisely the moment the world economy was still digesting the inflationary and growth consequences of the tariff shock,” said economists at ING bank.

Coface’s Nizard said they estimated that “an increase of roughly 15 dollars in the price of Brent over a prolonged period could shave about 0.2 percentage points off global growth and add almost half a point to inflation.”

These are “not insignificant” effects in a context of “fairly fragile global economic growth”, he added.

Energy infrastructure emerges as war target, lifting prices


By AFP
March 2, 2026


Qatar's state-run energy firm said it had halted liquefied natural gas production following Iranian attacks on facilities at two of its main gas processing bases - Copyright AFP/File Fadel SENNA


Théo MARIE-COURTOIS with Pol-Malo LE BRIS in London

Energy prices surged Monday as the war in the Middle East led to outages of key energy production operations and a critical waterway was essentially emptied of traffic.

European natural gas prices finished the day up more than 39 percent after surging more than 50 percent earlier in the day.

Brent oil futures rose to above $82 dollars a barrel, a gain of more than 13 percent early in the session. The benchmark finished up 7.3 percent at $77.74 a barrel, up around $15 compared with the start of 2026.

US benchmark West Texas Intermediate ended at $71.23 a barrel, up 6.3 percent.



– Suspended output –



The surge in prices comes as key energy facilities emerge as targets in the war.

Qatar’s state-run energy firm said it had halted liquefied natural gas production following Iranian attacks on facilities at two of its main gas processing bases.

Earlier, the massive Ras Tanura refinery on Saudi Arabia’s Gulf coast went into partial shutdown after a strike by drones led to a fire.

A terminal in Abu Dhabi was also attacked by a drone.



– Hormuz exodus –



In parallel, energy markets are also absorbing a de facto halt to traffic in the Strait of Hormuz, through which about 20 percent of global supply of oil and LNG travel.

The waterway has not technically been closed, but major maritime companies have suspended travel through it as insurance costs soar amid heightened risk.

Since Israel and the United States launched strikes on Iran on Saturday, the world’s largest shipping firms — Italian-Swiss MSC, Denmark’s Maersk, France’s CMA CGM, Germany’s Hapaq Lloyd and China’s Cosco — have ordered their ships to find shelter and stay safe.

The exodus of ships from the waterway will prevent some 15 million barrels per day of oil from reaching global markets, estimated Rystad Energy senior vice president Jorge Leon.

“Whether the Strait is closed by force or rendered inaccessible by risk avoidance, the impact on flows is largely the same,” Leon said in a note. “Nations with strategic petroleum reserves may take action and release volumes if the disruption of the Strait risks being extended.”



– Asia, Europe impacted –



The upheaval in the Middle East poses particular risks for Asian countries, the market for about 80 percent of the petroleum through the Hormuz, according to the International Energy Agency.

But the conflict also poses risks to Europe, a major market for LNG from Qatar.

“The closure has potentially severe implications for Europe’s energy security,” said a note from Eurasia Group that pointed out that European gas markets are “very tight” after a cold winter.



– $100 oil? –



Petroleum-importing countries within the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development are required to keep 90 days of emergency crude stockpiles that in theory should limit price increases.

But under a “worst-case scenario” gamed out by Eurasia Group, damage to Iran’s oilfields permanently hits the country’s exports, while the precarity to Hormuz traffic persists.

“In that case, the combination of heightened risk to traffic, the long-term loss of Iranian exports, and the short-term loss of other regional production would be enough to push the Brent per barrel price close to $100 per barrel,” said Eurasia, which projected prices of $75-$85 a barrel as a more likely outcome.

The last time oil prices topped $100 a barrel was at the start of the Ukraine war, when natural gas prices also spiked well above Monday’s level.

Kpler analyst Michelle Brouhard described high oil prices as “the Achilles heel of (US President Donald) Trump,” adding that Iran was likely to look to keep crude prices lofty to pressure the US president ahead of midterm elections in November.

Trump himself has said he expects the operation to go four or five weeks.

After a bad start, Wall Street stocks finished Monday’s session mixed, a sign investors don’t expect an especially lengthy impact.

Oxford Economics predicted that Iran would struggle to keep the Strait of Hormuz quiet for long, but that a period of “lower-level disruption to trade flows” was more plausible.

Oxford expects oil prices to rise to almost $80 a barrel in the second quarter before eventually dropping back to $60.

“The duration of the conflict and the nature of any regime change in Iran is key to understanding the economic impact, but these remain highly uncertain,” Oxford said.

Iran war spells danger for global airlines



By AFP
March 2, 2026


Dubai suspended operations after its international airport was hit - Copyright US NAVY/AFP -



Tangi QUEMENER

Air routes closed, airports damaged and hundreds of thousands of passengers stranded: the new war in the Middle East has again highlighted the global aviation sector’s vulnerability to geopolitical upheaval.

Much of the region’s airspace has been shut after the US and Israeli attack on Iran and its retaliatory strikes in the region — further disrupting a global air-traffic scene already complicated by Russia’s war in Ukraine.

Dubai International Airport, Kuwait’s main airport and a British military airbase in Cyprus were hit during Iran’s response.

Iran, Iraq, Israel, Syria, Kuwait, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates all announced at least partial closures of their skies.

The International Air Transport Association (IATA) on Monday called on all sides to refrain from targeting civilian aircraft and airports.

For commercial airlines, the conflict raised memories of disasters such as that of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17, destroyed by a missile over Ukraine in 2014 with 298 people killed, or the Ukrainian Boeing accidentally shot down by Iran in 2020, killing 176.

“It is critical that states respect their obligation to keep civilians and civil aviation free from harm,” said the head of IATA, Willie Walsh, head of the International Air Transport Association.

“We all hope for an early peaceful resolution to the current hostilities.”



– Thousands of flights cancelled –



Dubai’s airports announced they would resume limited flights on Monday evening but Air France said it was extending its suspension of flights to that and three other airports until March 5.

According to the aeronautical data provider Cirium, at least 1,560 inbound flights to the Middle East out of 3,779 were cancelled on Monday.

On Sunday, 2,000 cancellations were recorded out of 4,000 flights — representing about 900,000 aircraft seats.

Beyond Iran, no civil aircraft were flying on Monday afternoon over the Emirates, Qatar, Kuwait or Iraq, according to the online mapping tool of the website Flightradar24.

The major air corridor over the Euphrates Valley in Iraq was empty.

Aircraft connecting Europe to Asia were flying either via the Gulf of Suez and then through central Saudi Arabia and Oman, or much further north through the narrow Armenia–Azerbaijan corridor.

These two countries, lying between Iran and the Russian Caucasus, have become essential to aviation since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022.

Moscow barred Western and Japanese airlines from its airspace in retaliation for similar measures targeting its own carriers.

No-fly “red zones” have multiplied in recent years — notably linked to the war in Gaza and clashes between Israel and Lebanon’s Hezbollah, but also in Africa, Afghanistan and Pakistan.



Strait of Hormuz impasse squeezes world shipping


By AFP
March 2, 2026


The conflict has upended shipping in the region - Copyright AFP Karim SAHIB


Isabel MALSANG

With few captains willing to brave the Strait of Hormuz as war rages around the Gulf, companies will have to do business without one of the world’s most vital shipping lanes, especially for oil and gas.


– What is the strait’s importance to world markets? –



The strait is especially key to the world energy markets, with around 20 percent of global seaborne oil passing through.

That said, analysts believe that cutting off access, as Iran has threatened to do, will not affect the major Asia-Europe shipping route, with the Gulf ending in a cul-de-sac by the shores of Kuwait, Iraq and Iran.

But the strait is essential to all regional trade as it allows access to Dubai’s Jebel Ali port, the world’s 10th-largest container port and a redistribution hub for more than a dozen countries in the region.

In Jebel Ali, container ships are unloaded onto smaller vessels bound for countries ranging from east Africa to India, noted Anne-Sophie Fribourg, vice-president of France’s TLF freighters union.



– Has it ever been closed? –



The Strait of Hormuz has always been open for business.

Even during the Iran-Iraq war between 1980 and 1988, commercial passage was maintained despite attacks on oil tankers, said Paul Tourret, director of the French High Institute for Maritime Economy.

The current “freeze” on goods transiting through the strait is “unprecedented”, said Cyrille Poirier-Coutansais, research director at the French Navy’s Strategic Studies Centre.

Since Israel and the United States launched strikes on Iran on Saturday, the world’s largest shipping firms — Italian-Swiss MSC, Denmark’s Maersk, France’s CMA CGM, Germany’s Hapaq Lloyd and China’s Cosco — have ordered their ships to find shelter and stay safe.

On the Marine Traffic map, which tracks world shipping movements, you can make out clusters of ships, mainly tankers, anchored far to the north near Kuwait, as well as off the coast near Dubai.

The Iranian merchant navy is likewise visible off the Iranian port of Bandar Abbas on the other side of the strait.

Several other distinct groups of ships can be seen just before the entry to Hormuz, Tourret said.



– What goods transit through Hormuz? –



Germany ships cars, machinery and industrial products via the strait, while France mainly sells cereals and agricultural products, cosmetics, luxury goods and pharmaceuticals.

Italy, meanwhile, exports food, large quantities of marble and ceramics, said TLF’s Fribourg.

In the other direction, besides oil and gas, from which fertilisers and plastics are derived, the Middle East accounts for nine percent of the world’s primary aluminium production, nearly all of which is exported, according to TD Commodities.



– Will there be delays? Price increases? –



Several online shopping platforms have warned their clients that delivery times may increase.

Temu and Shein have warned of delays of several days, while Amazon forecast even longer waits, according to Bloomberg.

Freight costs are already rising as a result of the additional charges shipping companies are imposing for transit in the region.

For the Europe-Asia route, ships are also no longer using the passage through the Red Sea and the Suez Canal due to fears of renewed attacks by Iran’s allies in Yemen, the Houthis.

Rounding the Cape of Good Hope, at the tip of South Africa, adds around 10 extra days at sea and increases costs by roughly 30 percent.


“We have never been in such a difficult situation,” Thierry Oriol, a senior representative of French airline pilots’ union SNPL, told AFP.

“Even during the Cold War, everyone flew all over the place. There weren’t all these no-fly zones.”



– EasyJet cancellations –



The fallout from the conflict extended beyond the Gulf, with a British military airbase in Cyprus hit on Monday by an Iranian drone.

UK low-cost airline EasyJet later said it was cancelling three flights to Britain scheduled from the Mediterranean island, while Paphos Airport in the west was evacuated.

IATA says Middle Eastern airlines accounted for 9.5 percent of global air traffic last year.

Via hubs such as of Dubai and Doha, Gulf-based carriers such as Emirates, Etihad and Qatar Airways with their long‑haul fleets connect Europe and the Americas with Asia and Oceania.

With annual revenues exceeding a trillion dollar among its 360 airline members, IATA had forecast records in traffic and profits this year, with 5.2 billion passengers.

It warned on Monday that the war unleashed uncertainty over air traffic levels and — crucially — fuel costs.


Maersk suspends vessel transit through Strait of Hormuz


By AFP
March 1, 2026


State media in Oman said Sunday an oil tanker off its coast had been targeted - Copyright UGC/AFP -

Maersk, the major container shipping company, said Sunday it was halting passage through the Suez Canal and the narrow Strait of Hormuz in the Gulf, next to Iran, for “safety” reasons.

The Danish group was the latest of several shipping groups to make similar announcements after Iran’s Revolutionary Guards declared the strait closed on Saturday.

“We have decided… to pause future Trans-Suez sailings through the Bab el-Mandeb Strait for the time being,” Maersk said in an online advisory.

“We are suspending all vessel crossings in the Strait of Hormuz until further notice,” it added.

“The safety of our crews, vessels and customers’ cargo remains our key priority.”

The Strait of Hormuz is a strategic waterway through which passes nearly a quarter of the world’s seaborne oil supplies, as well as a significant amount of cargo to and from Gulf ports.

Egypt’s Suez Canal is the region’s other vital waterway, connecting the Mediterranean Sea to the Red Sea, a long relied-on shortcut from Europe to Asia’s ports on the Indian Ocean.

Maersk said it would be rerouting ships around the Cape of Good Hope — the southern tip of Africa — adding thousands of miles to the journey.

It also said it would be closing its offices in the United Arab Emirates, Qatar and Oman.



– ‘Maximum caution’ –



MSC, another big shipping company, told its vessels in the Gulf “to proceed to designated safe shelter areas until further notice”.

State media in Oman, which sits on the other side of the strait, said Sunday an oil tanker off its coast had been targeted and four of its crew hurt.

And the United Kingdom Maritime Trade Operations (UKMTO) Centre said Sunday that another ship, this one off the UAE’s coast also near the Strait of Hormuz, reported being hit “by an unknown projectile causing a fire”.

International Maritime Organization chief Arsenio Dominguez said in a statement Sunday: “I urge all shipping companies to exercise maximum caution.

“Where possible, vessels should avoid transiting the affected region until conditions improve,” he added.

Already on Saturday, two other major shipping firms had warned its vessels away from the area for security reasons.

German shipowners Hapag-Lloyd, the fifth largest in the world, said it was suspending traffic by its vessels through the Strait of Hormuz.

And France’s CMA CGM told its vessels in the Gulf to “take shelter” and also suspended passage through the Suez Canal.

Strait of Hormuz closure to impact global fertiliser market




Closure of the Strait of Hormuz threatens global fertiliser supplies as nearly half of sulphur and a third of urea shipments transit the corridor. / bne IntelliNews

By Ben Aris in Berlin March 3, 2026


The closure of the Strait of Hormuz will impact the global fertilizers market as more fertilizers traverse the straits on the way to the international market than hydrocarbons do.

The straits were closed by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) on March 2 and reportedly no ships are currently moving in the tight bottleneck that sees a large share of the world’s energy and commodities pass through on the way to customers around the globe.

With nearly half of global sulphur flows and close to a third of urea shipments moving through the corridor the impact of the conflict will reverberate around the world.

Roughly 44% of globally traded sulphur, a critical input for phosphate fertilisers, passes through the strait. The route also handles about 31% of urea flows, 18% of ammonia shipments and 15% of phosphates, according to industry estimates. That compares to a fifth of the world’s oil and LNG that is shipped from Gulf producers to worldwide customers.

Any disruption to maritime traffic in the corridor has immediate implications for fertiliser supply chains and farm input costs everywhere.

Sulphur is primarily produced as a by-product of oil and gas processing in Gulf states, making exports heavily dependent on uninterrupted energy production and shipping. Urea and ammonia, both nitrogen-based fertilisers, are widely used in staple crop production including wheat, maize and rice, while phosphates are essential for maintaining soil fertility.

The concentration of these exports in the Gulf region means that a halt to exports via the Strait of Hormuz can quickly translate into price volatility. Fertiliser markets are already sensitive to energy prices, as natural gas is a key feedstock for ammonia and urea production. Disruptions to transport routes add an additional layer of risk.

Agricultural producers in major importing regions such as south Asia, sub-Saharan Africa and parts of Latin America rely on steady fertiliser supplies to sustain crop yields. Higher fertiliser prices can feed through into food inflation, particularly in countries dependent on imports.

Warming El Nino may return later this year: UN


By AFP
March 3, 2026


El Nino helped make 2024 the hottest year on record, fuelling extreme weather events - Copyright AFP LUIS TATO

The warming El Nino weather phenomenon could return later this year as its cooling opposite La Nina fades away, the United Nations said Tuesday.

The UN’s World Meteorological Organization (WMO) said the recent, weak La Nina was expected to give way to neutral conditions, which could then swing into El Nino before the end of 2026.

La Nina is a naturally occurring climate phenomenon that cools surface temperatures in the central and eastern equatorial Pacific Ocean. It brings changes in winds, pressure and rainfall patterns.

The WMO said there was a 60-percent chance of neutral conditions during the three-month window from March to May, with a 30-percent chance of La Nina conditions, and El Nino at a 10-percent probability.

There is a 70-percent chance of neutral conditions during April-June.

In May-July, the chance of neutral conditions drops back to 60 percent, with the chances of El Nino at 40 percent.

“The WMO community will be carefully monitoring conditions in the coming months to inform decision-making,” said Celeste Saulo, who heads the UN’s weather and climate agency.

“The most recent El Nino, in 2023-24, was one of the five strongest on record and it played a role in the record global temperatures we saw in 2024,” the WMO secretary-general said.

El Nino contributed to making 2023 the second-hottest year on record and 2024 the all-time high.



– Above-average temperatures –



The WMO underlined that naturally occurring climate events such as La Nina and El Nino take place against the backdrop of human-induced climate change, which is “increasing global temperatures in the long-term, exacerbating extreme weather and climate events, and impacting seasonal rainfall and temperature patterns”.

The US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration says there is a 50- to 60-percent chance of El Nino developing during the July-September period and beyond.

“Seasonal forecasts for El Nino and La Nina help us avert millions of dollars in economic losses and are essential planning tools for climate-sensitive sectors like agriculture, health, energy and water management,” said Saulo.

“They are also a key part of the climate intelligence provided by WMO to support humanitarian operations and disaster risk management, and thus save lives,” she said.

The WMO’s latest Global Seasonal Climate update says there is a widespread global signal for above-average land surface temperatures for March to May.

Rainfall predictions in the equatorial Pacific show a lingering La Nina-like pattern, but in other parts of the world the signal is more mixed, it says.

El Nino may return in 2026 and make planet even hotter


By AFP
March 2, 2026


El Nino causes wetter conditions in some parts of the world, such as here in Kenya in 2023 - Copyright AFP Tony KARUMBA
Laurent THOMET

The warming El Nino weather phenomenon could form later this year, potentially pushing global temperatures to record heights.

There is a 50- to 60-percent chance of El Nino developing during the July-September period and beyond, according to the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

The World Meteorological Organization will issue an update on El Nino on Tuesday.

Here’s what you need to know about El Nino and its cooler sister, La Nina:

– Why the name? –

El Nino and its cooler sister La Nina are two phases of a natural climate pattern across the tropical Pacific known as the El Nino-Southern Oscillation (ENSO).

Peruvian and Ecuadoran fishermen coined the term El Nino (“the boy” or “the Christ Child”) in the 19th century for the arrival of an unusually warm ocean current off the coast that reduced their catch just before Christmas.

Scientists chose the name La Nina as the opposite of El Nino. Between the two events, there is a “neutral” phase.

– El Nino –

El Nino can weaken consistent trade winds that blow east to west across the tropical Pacific, influencing weather by affecting the movement of warm water across this vast ocean.

This weakening warms the usually cooler central and eastern sides of the ocean, altering rainfall over the equatorial Pacific and wind patterns around the world.

The extra heat at the surface of the Pacific releases energy into the atmosphere that can temporarily drive up global temperatures, which is why El Nino years are often among the warmest on record.

“All else being equal, a typical El Nino event tends to cause a temporary increase in the global mean temperature on the order of 0.1C-0.2C,” Nat Johnson, an NOAA meteorologist, told AFP.

El  Nino occurs every two to seven years.

It typically results in drier conditions across southeast Asia, Australia, southern Africa, and northern Brazil, and wetter conditions in the Horn of Africa, the southern United States, Peru and Ecuador.

– Another record? –

The last El Nino occurred in 2023-2024, contributing to making 2023 the second highest year on record and 2024 the all-time high.

Carlo Buontempo, director of the European Union’s Copernicus Climate Change Service, told AFP in January that 2026 could be “another record-breaking year” if El Nino appears this year.

However, El Nino’s impact would be higher in 2027 than in 2026 if it develops in the second half of this year, said Tido Semmler, a climate scientist at Ireland’s National Meteorological Service.

“It takes time for the global atmosphere to react to the El Nino,” he said.

“Having said this, there is a risk of 2026 being the warmest year on record even without El Nino, due to the global warming trend,” Semmler told AFP.

“2027 would face an increased risk of getting a record warm year if El Nino developed in the second half of 2026,” he added.

– La Nina –

The latest La Nina episode was relatively weak and short lived, starting in December 2024 and due to enter a neutral phase during the Februady-April period.

La Nina cools the eastern Pacific Ocean for a period of about one to three years, generating the opposite effects to El Nino on global weather.

It leads to wetter conditions in parts of Australia, southeast Asia, India, southeast Africa and northern Brazil, while causing drier conditions in parts of South America.

La Nina did not stop 2025 from being the third hottest on record.

– New calculation –

The NOAA adopted in February a new way of determining El Nino and El Nino events.

The old Oceanic Nino Index (ONI) compared the three-month average sea surface temperature one region of the Pacific with a 30-year average in the same area.

But as the oceans have been warming rapidly, that old 30-year average can be out of date.

The new method, the Relative Oceanic Nino Index (RONI), compares how warm or cool the east-central Pacific is compared to the rest of the tropics.

The NOAA said RONI is a “clearer, more reliable way” to track El Nino and La Nina in real time.

A War That Cannot be Won: Israel and the United States Bomb Iran

 March 3, 2026

Photograph by Nathaniel St. Clair

Having just formed the Board of Peace, the United States and Israel have begun the board’s first war, this time on Iran. The US-Israel attack launched early on February 28, on sites in Iran has already caused devastation, including the deaths of at least 60 little girls from an elementary school in Minab (Hormozgan Province), and dozens of others across the country. The latest estimates put the death toll at 201.

In fact, the attack on Iran on February 28, 2026, was not the first strike on Iran. Israel and the US have been in a state of war against Iran for decades, either through direct military strikes (as recently as June 2025) or through the long hybrid war imposed on Iran (including punitive US sanctions that began in 1996).

Neither Israel nor the United States value the United Nations Charter, whose Article 2 has been routinely violated by both (neither face condemnation in the UN Security Council, which impacts the reputation of the Charter). For decades now, the United States and its Global North allies have demonized Iran, treating its politics as terrorism and its government as dictatorial. They have essentially created the argument that attempts to overthrow the government in Tehran is legitimate even if it is a violation of the UN Charter.

However, US President Donald Trump does not have the appetite for a long war. He has a short-attention span and seeks quick victories that can quickly give him a headline for the news cycle, like the kidnapping of Venezuela’s President Nicolás Maduro on January 3, 2026, and the executive order to prevent the sale of oil to Cuba on January 30. Trump hoped for a similar outcome: the assassination of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei or the president, Masoud Pezeshkian. Reports have confirmed that Iran’s supreme leader was in fact killed in the Israeli-US attack. However, despite Trump’s call for regime change, so far there has been no change in political leaders. The Israeli-US strike in June 2025 did not destroy Iran’s nuclear energy project, nor did the strike in February 2026 destroy Iran’s political system.

The history of unilateral strikes on Iran

The current Israeli-US military campaign against Iran began in January 2020, when the United States assassinated General Qasem Soleimani in Baghdad, Iraq. General Soleimani was the head of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) and the architect of the “axis of resistance”, which was the first circle of defense for Iran: the idea that if the United States or Israel tried to strike Iran, then Iran’s close allies from Hezbollah (Lebanon) to Ansar Allah (Yemen) would strike both Israel and the US military bases.

The killing of Soleimani was a blow to the axis, but three years later, a set of events disrupted the axis that he had designed. Israel’s genocide against Palestine weakened Hamas, its war in Lebanon disrupted Hezbollah (especially the assassination of Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah in September 2024), and the installation of the former al-Qaeda leader Ahmed al-Sharaa as President of Syria in January 2025 led to the removal of all pro-Palestinian groups from the country. Having relatively broken this first circle of defense, Israel and the United States struck Iran in June 2025 with some Iranian retaliation but nothing like it would have been had Hezbollah and the factions in Syria been able to strike Israel.

After the June 2025 strike on Iran’s nuclear energy facilities, Israel and the United States said that it had destroyed Iran’s capacity to build nuclear weapons. If this was the case, then why didn’t the United States make a deal with Iran and withdraw sanctions? After all, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian came to power in 2024 with a “reform” agenda, formed a cabinet that included a neoliberal finance minister (Ali Madanizadeh), and therefore showed that he was willing to be concessionary to Western-controlled institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). However, in response to US-Israeli strikes in June 2025, Iran ended its inspection agreements that it had made with the IAEA. The IMF noted the weak outlook for Iran but saw that this was largely due to US-imposed sanctions and—from its perspective—the subsidy regime in Iran.

Madanizadeh placated the IMF by pushing an austerity budget. This created the social distress that was inflamed when the US intervened to disrupt the Iranian rial and deepen the economic crisis in the country. Sections of the bazaaris or the small traders in Iran, the base of the Islamic Republic, who felt the blunt of the inflation turned against the government but not necessarily against the system itself. The US and Israel, as well as the foreign media, deliberately misread the situation, proclaiming erroneously that the people of Iran are against their republic. Despite the attempt by Pezeshkian’s government to meet the United States on its terms, the US and Israel pushed for an unrealistic maximalist end game, namely the overthrow of the Islamic Republic.

Nuclear program or regime change?

That maximalist end game was driven by the demand by the US and Israel that Iran end an illusionary nuclear weapons program. Iran has, for decades, said that it is not interested in nuclear weapons, and Pezeshkian’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi repeatedly has said that Iran will never develop such weapons. Iran has said that it is willing to discuss the issue of its nuclear program, but that it will not put the reality of the Islamic Republic on the table (or the actuality of the December 1979 Iranian Constitution). Hours before the February 2026 attack, the negotiations between Iran and the United States had come close to an agreement. Oman’s Foreign Minister Sayyid Badr bin Hamad al-Busaidi said that a “peace deal is within our reach” and that Iran agreed to zero stockpiling. In other words, Iran had been ready to accept most of the demands being imposed upon it against its nuclear energy program. That the US-Israel attacked in this context shows that Iran’s nuclear project is not the real issue for Washington and Tel Aviv. They are committed to regime change.

If the US-Israeli war is a war for regime change then it is a war that cannot be won without enormous loss of human life. There are nearly 100 million people in Iran, a large section of whom will defend their republic till their death. A few days after the US kidnapped Maduro, Khamenei went to the shrine of his predecessor Grand Ayatollah Seyyed Ruhollah Musavi Khomeini (1900-1989). It is interesting that Khamenei turned 89 years old, the same age as Khomeini when he died. It was almost as if he went to see his old friend and mentor to take courage from him. The assassination of Khamenei will not demoralize the supporters of the Islamic Republic but will instead lift him into the sphere of martyrdom and strengthen their resolve. With Iran, the US and Israel have no realistic strategy to win. They might kill large numbers of people. But they cannot break the will of Iranian patriotism.

This article was produced by Globetrotter.

Vijay Prashad is the Director of Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research. His most recent book (with Grieve Chelwa) is How the International Monetary Fund Suffocates Africa (from Inkani Books).


‘Peace’ President Trump Launches another War, This time a Doozy that Could Rival Bush’s Iraq Nightmare



 March 3, 2026


U.S. Central Command strike during Operation Epic Fury in Iran, 2 March 2026.

US President Donald Trump, who already shares the title of the 21st Century’s worst perpetrator of genocide along with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, can now add the title of worst war criminal of the 21st Century for his completely unprovoked war on Iran, also shared with Netanyahu.

When President Roosevelt took to the radio in 1941 to notify the American people of Japan’s US surprise attack on the US Pacific fleet moored in Pearl Harbor, Hawaii he called the blitz by carrier-based aircraft and mini-subs on December 7, “A date that will live in infamy.”

Roosevelt was referring to a Japan’s decision to attack the US without first declaring war, though later research shows that the Japanese government did send such a warning to be delivered to the White House by the Japanese Embassy in Washington, but because of difficulty there in translating the code, it arrived after the attack was already underway.

In Trump’s case, Pentagon planning for this joint attack on Iran by the US and Israel, which began early last November, from the start was meant to be a complete surprise.

As Iran was in no condition to attack the US, even as Trump had assembled the largest naval armada since the launching of the invasion of Iraq in 2003 ,and also ordered half the US Air Force’s fleet of air-worthy bombers and fighter-bombers moved to the Persian Gulf region, this invasion constitutes a “Crime against Peace” under the Geneva Conventions, which is described as “the highest of all war crimes as it contains all others.”

Particularly galling is Trump’s failure to give any credible reason that could justify the attack. In the run-up to to his newist snd biggest war, he spoke about defending the “tens of thousands” of young people being killed by government thugs as they protested the rule of the mullahs. He spoke too of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei (killed in an early strike by Israel on his compound) as being being “evil,” and about Iran’s allegedly being “a week away” from having enough U-235 to produce a nuclear bomb (this despite Thump’s boast that Iran’s nuclear program had been “obliterated” by an earlier surprise bombing attack by the US and Israeli planes he had ordered last June), and about Tehran’s being unwilling to submit to inspection of its “nuclear program,” including some of his own.

In any event, none of these explanations for launching a “pre-emptive” war against Iran—with the exception of the wholly absurd claim about the threat of that far-away country being“within days” of building a uranium bomb, a deliberately scarey line which echoes G.W, Bush’s fraudulent excuse for invading Iraq over two decades ago— can justify this latest US Invasion of that sanctions-strangled nation. (Trump’s other claim was that Iran was working on an ICBM that could “reach the United States,” though even if this were true, it would pose no significant threat if the country could only put a conventional warhead on it).

Many, myself included, noting how often presidents have launched wars when their popularity is crashing because of scandal or incompetence (both of which crises Trump faces), are suggesting this is all a bloody and incredibly costly diversion from the increasingly appalling Epstein scandal, in which Trump’s name and image is appearing (or being blacked out) with increasing frequency.

Meanwhile President Trump appears to have no plan or even any “concept of a plan,” should the US-Israel blitz succeed in toppling the Tehran government, to restore order (much less democratic rule) in a nation of 92.5 million people who have been struggling under tyranny of one kind or another for the 73 years since their elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh was ousted in a 1953 coup orchestrated by the US and Britain. All Trump has done is advise Iranians to “rise up” and overthrow their leaders. That’s what he called on Venezuelans to do after he bombed their capital city and had US Special Forces kidnap their elected President Nicolas Maduro. Since then our president’s been too busy stealing the Venezuela’s oil to pay any attention to restoring its economy and helping its people put a new government in place (something one hopes that Iranians have noted).

Eventually, Trump should be impeached for this latest war crime, which also violates the US Constitution, which states clearly that unless it is attacked or faces imminent attack, only Congress can authorize the country to launch a war. But at least the inevitable debacle in Iran and in the wider Middle East should keep the US military too busy to invade Cuba — something Trump has threatened to do.

This article by Dave Lindorff appeared originally in ThisCantBeHappening! on its new Substack platform at https://thiscantbehappening.substack.com/. Please check out the new site and consider signing up for a cut-rate subscription that will be available until the end of the month.

How Deadly is a Dying Animal? Carnage in Iran Can’t Stop the Inevitable



 March 3, 2026


Photograph Source: Mehr News Agency – CC BY 4.0

When I was small my mother warned me never to approach a sick animal. The dying ones, she said, are the deadliest of all.

That hasn’t been my experience; most of the dying creatures I’ve encountered just want a quiet place to pass their final hours. The source of my mother’s anxiety was closer to home than she had yet to recognize, but her fear was palpable. She was haunted by the vision of her curly-haired child falling prey to some sickly, snarling, yellow-eyed feral creature with nothing left to lose. That’s a mother’s worst nightmare.

Flash forward to February 28, 2026. Dozens of schoolchildren were reported dead in “one of two strikes that appear to have hit schools since U.S. and Israeli warplanes launched their attack on Iran around 10 a.m. local time.” It was a mother’s worst fear come true, many times over.[1]

Why would Israel and the United States kill children? The genocide in Gaza has made it clear that neither country is shy about the systematic extermination of the very young when it serves their strategic interests. These deaths, however, seem to be the products of tactical indifference rather than intentional annihilation. The girls’ school was near an Iranian naval base, and the high school was in the neighborhood where former Iranian president Ahmadinejad lived and was targeted by bombers.[2]

This is how dying animals behave in a mother’s nightmare. They’re not looking for human children to kill—not the way an airborne raptor or an IDF soldier would. They simply lash out blindly in a desperate fight against the inevitable. Sometimes children get in the way.

Yes, Ayatollah Khamenei is dead. Big deal. Others like him were already prepared to step in.

Our political culture is naive, almost childlike, in its attachment to the “great man” theory of history, with the “evil man” as its shadow side. Powerful figures do sometimes alter history, but only within those time-worn channels Tennyson called the “ringing grooves of change.” Khamenei’s power began with the US overthrow of the Iranian government in 1953, which set the stage for Iran’s current theocracy. The brutality of the Shah only hardened the steely resolve of Khamenei’s predecessor, who cast aside pro-democracy Ayatollah Hossein Ali Montazeri to put Khamenei in power. If it hadn’t been him, it would been found someone equally hard-lined.

Trump and Netanyahu are merely the latest leaders to be vomited up from a groove whose name is “colonialism.” Its source is not the culture or beliefs of ancient Jewish tribes. This groove traces back to the chieftains and pagan shamans of pre-Christian Europe. It rings with the sound of cauldrons and cannons and the church bells of the inquisitor. If some of its own children must be sacrificed, too, so be it.

Once again, pro-democracy protesters have been betrayed by US-made bombs. Attacks by foreign countries almost always strengthen their current leadership and weaken protest movements. There’s no reason to think this time will be any different. Khamenei is almost certainly more powerful in martyrdom than he was in the last months of his life. The protesters must now wait for the inevitable betrayal. May they find solidarity in just people around the world.

As-yet-unconfirmed reports suggest that the bombers have targeted some of the leaders who are best positioned to form an independent government. That wouldn’t be surprising. The US and Israel don’t want an independent Iran. They want a vassal.

But wait, you say. Israel and the United States aren’t dying animals. They’re very much alive and will be for the foreseeable future. Don’t be so sure. Netanyahu has been clinging to power for years to avoid prosecution for a litany of corruption charges. Trump was also threatened by multiple prosecutions before winning re-election. Both men, having feasted lavishly on ill-gotten gains, were desperate to avoid the consequences of their own actions.

For Netanyahu, Israel’s future looks grim. Much of the world has turned against it. Public opinion is evolving from revulsion over its actions to doubts about its very legitimacy as a theocratic ethno-state. Public support for Israel, once considered immutable, has plummeted in the US and Western Europe, especially among younger people who are more likely to consider it an “apartheid state.”

Israel, dependent on Western largesse, is likely to face a critical decision when these generations assume power: become a truly democratic state that ends radicalized privilege or remain an unsustainable international pariah. Either way, the clock is almost certainly ticking on the era of Eretz Israel envisioned by Zionism’s founders. It may take decades, with great bloodshed along the way, but this change seems increasingly likely.

This is not an outré idea. Israel’s military and political leaders see this future almost as clearly as independent observers do. No wonder they’ve become increasingly open in their violence. It’s a sign of desperation as well as hate.

The United States may not disappear as a nation in the foreseeable future. But its global dominance and that of its elites will end, and probably soon. That prospect fills its current leaders with existential dread. Billionaires build airstrips in the Hamptons and rehearse the apocalypse in mountaintop retreats. Politicians try to seize control of oil-rich nations through brute force and feed the fantasy that exorbitant military spending can crush the spirit of independent peoples.

As the philosopher Antonio Gramsci wrote, “the old is dying and the new cannot be born; in this twilight, a great variety of morbid symptoms appear.”

Richard Nixon said this when he tried selling an equally delusional war to the American people:

“If, when the chips are down, the world’s most powerful nation, the United States of America, acts like a pitiful, helpless giant, the forces of totalitarianism and anarchy will threaten free nations and free institutions throughout the world.”

The “forces of totalitarianism and anarchy” are us. Every war the US has fought in the intervening half-century has been a strategic and military failure. The United States has become a pitiful, violent giant—lethal and proud, but pitiful just the same. It spends itself into social oblivion for military machinery. It turns the technology of human suppression against its own population with increasing ferocity. As inequality surpasses that of the Gilded Age, software surveils our every move as drones and helicopters hover in the sky.

Every empire in history has eventually turned against its own people, and always at the same historical moment: right before it dies.

Trump and Netanyahu may parade before the cameras like winners, but they carry the stink of losers—moral, spiritual, and tactical losers. They’re pitiful because they’re desperate, and they’re desperate because their realms are dying. The grief of mothers and fathers mean nothing to creatures such as these.

Here’s a silent whisper for the wounded and discouraged, the grim-faced and the grieving, the unseen victims in Palestine and Yemen and Iran and around the globe: may they see with their hearts that time is running out for the Trumps and Netanyahus of their hearts. May they take comfort in the inevitability of their fall.

Yes, they’re still deadly. Of course they are. They’re killers. But so was John Wayne Gacy, and he was a clown.

Notes.

[1]The New York Times report continues: “Saturday is the start of the workweek in the country, and many Iranians had already dropped off their children and headed into their offices as explosions began to shake the capital and many cities across Iran.”

The Norwegian group Hengaw reported that 170 children were in class when the bombs fell on Shajarah Tayyebeh girls’ school. The Iranian Red Crescent said there were 60 fatalities, a figure that has since been revised upward. Other students were reportedly killed when bombs fell on Hedayat High School in Teheran.

If you’re planning to reply by saying there’s still no independent confirmation of these reports, don’t bother. They’ve been supported by two human rights organizations, Hengaw and the US-based Human Rights Activists News Agency, both of which have reported extensively on the Iranian government’s lethal and indefensible violence against protesters. (The US military’s CENTCOM has not denied these reports, saying only that it is “looking into them.”)

[2] Both killings may have been the result of AI “hallucinations”; this war appears to be the largest full-scale trial of AI to date. Coincidentally (or not), military AI was the subject of a piece that was pre-empted here by the attack on Iran. In any case, the moral responsibility doesn’t change whenever new technology is introduced.

Richard (RJ) Eskow is the host of the Zero Hour and a former adviser to the campaign of Bernie Sanders. Twitter: @rjeskow


Going Native in the Trump Jungle


How it became Legal to Attack Iran


The allies of the United States have gone native, feral even, in the jungle of international relations planted by President Donald J. Trump. While we keep hearing about how awful Russia’s war against Ukraine is, with its shattering of international law and its dismissiveness of the provisions of the United Nations Charter, the Israeli-US attack on Iran has been given the seal of approval by America’s client states and supporters. Countries such as the UK, France, Germany, Australia and Canada, for instance, were clear in endorsing a UN General Assembly resolution on February 24 supporting Ukraine in the face of Russia’s violation of Article 2(4) of the UN Charter. The provision explicitly “prohibits the threat or use of force”, calling on Member states “to respect the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of other States.” Nothing of the sort has been seen regarding the illegal assault on Iran that began on February 28.

Most pitiful in the repudiation of the Charter by US allies are the stances of the supposed “middle powers”, a term as flattering as middle management. These middling types – Australia and Canada stand out here – have been keen to wish themselves into abject irrelevance on the issue of international law. This is despite calls from the Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney that like-minded powers should club together to rectify the collapse of the rules-based international order so cherished under the Pax Americana. At his speech delivered at the World Economic Forum’s Annual Meeting in Davos, Carney extolled the ideas of being principled and pragmatic which would include valuing “sovereignty, territorial integrity, the prohibition of the use of force, except when consistent with the UN Charter”. Nothing of this was evident in the joint February 28 statement from Carney and his Foreign Affairs Minister Anita Anand: “Canada supports the United States acting to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, and to prevent its regime from further threatening international peace and security.”

All craven positions taken by states have slight differences, and the Australian one can be measured by the position that not taking part in the strikes does not mean having to consider their legal nature. “Obviously,” said Australian Foreign Minister Penny Wong on March 1, “Australia did not participate in these strikes.” But it supported “action to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and to prevent Iran from continuing to threaten international peace and security.”

The United Kingdom has gone one better by becoming entirely revisionist. In a March 1 statement, the government of Sir Keir Starmer revealed why the UK would be committing to the conflict against Tehran. This was not about Iran being pre-emptively and unlawfully attacked in the first place but Iran daring to defend itself by attacking regional powers hosting US military bases and personnel. Britain would therefore be mounting, at the insistence of Washington, a “defensive action” by targeting “missile facilities in Iran which were involved in launching strikes on regional allies.” It would also act “in the collective self-defence of regional allies who have requested support.” Any propaganda minister in the annals of history would have been proud of that fatuous formulation.

The propaganda of justification focuses on positions that, were they to become a template, could be applied to any number of regimes in the world. Do they crush and violate the human rights of their subjects, restrict lawful assembly, and fire on protestors? Are they theocracies, or governed by martial law, or traditional police states? Do they destabilise their region with needless meddling, posing “imminent” threats? Along the way, forget the limits on the use of force as stated in the UN Charter: that the territorial integrity of all states should be respected, and that any permission for the use of force should take place via the UN Security Council or be undertaken in cases of self-defence.

With sheer abandon, then, we can justify bumping off the leaders, the commanders, and the top officials – but be selective which theocracies, autocratic thugs and shifty types we want to keep company with. And the one to be selective here is Trump, who has personalised international relations with such dramatic effect as to terrify his allies into complicity and obedience. To condemn the actions against Iran as illegal could lead to frosty dismissal, the imposition of crushing sanctions or tariffs, exclusion from intelligence sharing, the shutting off from cooperative ventures. Be good to Donald, or he will bite. Best be bad to everybody he dislikes.

Important in the apologias for attacking Iran has been the anecdotal gauging of attitudes from the Iranian diaspora to be found in Canada, the US, Australia and Europe. Celebratory gestures of flag waving and ghoulish revelling in the death of Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, albeit understandable, have also been used to rationalise the war. The Iranian security apparatus had been brutal in putting down protests by brave citizens. We can forget what follows: greater instability and fractiousness within the borders of that state. The creation of more regional problems. The potential for even greater fanaticism and resolve.

In terms of immediate international consequences, protests against the killing of Khamanei in other Islamic states have taken place, in some cases with brutal results. In Pakistan, security forces have used lethal force, leaving 10 dead in Karachi, eight in Skardu and two in Islamabad. Yet little mention in the corridors of Western power is made about these fallen, presumably because they were not the right or relevant sort.

Both the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the NATO-led attacks on Libya in 2011 offer disturbing lessons, none of which interest the ahistorical outlaws of the Trump Jungle. The crime of international aggression against Iraq demonstrated the importance of lies and inflated threats – in that case deployable Weapons of Mass Destruction that were never found – along with the dismal failure of occupation and nation building. The Libyan example is seminal given the current aerial nature of the Israeli-US campaign against Iran.

In Libya, a NATO-led coalition intervened in the civil war ostensibly to protect civilians against the security forces of the dictator Muammar Gaddafi. “When crisis erupted in Libya,” remarked Sir John Sawers, former Chief of the British Secret Intelligence Service, in February 2015, “we didn’t feel it right to sit by as Gaddafi crushed decent Libyans demanding an end to dictatorship.” But Britain and its partners “didn’t want to get embroiled in Libya’s problems by sending in ground forces.”

Initially framed as an operation to protect civilians, the air campaign became one of support for anti-government militias, leading to Gaddafi’s overthrow and lynch-mob murder. The country duly fractured between rival fundamentalist groups and remains divided to this day. It also became a safe-haven for al-Qaeda and Islamic State forces to conduct operations against the country’s neighbours. “Libya,” recalled Sawers, “had no institutions. Who or what would take over? The answer? Those with the weapons. Result? Growing chaos, exploited by fanatics.” The lessons for the Israeli-US campaign are all too startlingly relevant.

The grotesque cowardice of various representatives, including the clueless fawning by Secretary General of NATO Mark Rutte, the unpardonable conduct of the European Commission’s top diplomats Ursula von der Leyen and Kaja Kallas, and most of the EU governments, has also revealed their feral conversion to a doctrine of force that does away with softening diplomacy and the tenets of international law. It’s almost an embarrassment to read the EU statement on avoiding escalation when the powers escalating the matter were Israel and the US while still insisting that diplomacy would have a role. The Iranians were engaged in diplomacy and were reassured that more talks would follow. This was a charade, a confidence trick that will impair the credibility of the West, or Global North, in terms of its conduct of relations when it comes to addressing threats, actual or perceived. All is permissible in the Trump Jungle.

Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email: bkampmark@gmail.comRead other articles by Binoy.
Destruction is not the same as political success’: US bombing of Iran shows little evidence of endgame strategy



THE CONVERSATION
Published: March 2, 2026 

Shortly after the opening salvo of U.S.-Israeli attacks on Iran on Feb. 28, 2026 – with missiles targeting cities across the country, some of which killed Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei – President Donald Trump declared the objective was to destroy Iran’s military capabilities and give rise to a change in government.

Framing the operation as a war of liberation, Trump called on Iranians to “take over your government.”

In the first days alone, Israel dropped over 2,000 bombs on Iranian targets, equal to half the tonnage of the 12-day Israel-Iran conflict in June 2025. Heavy U.S. bombing, meanwhile, has targeted Iran’s Revolutionary Guard as well as ballistic missile and aerial defense sites.

The destruction is real. But, as an international relations scholar, I know that destruction is not the same as political success. And the historical record of U.S. bombing campaigns aimed at regime change shows that the gap between the two – the point at which AfghanistanIraq and Libya campaigns all stalled – is where wars go to die.
Destruction is not strategy

Decades of scholarship dating back to World War I on using air power to force political change has established a consistent finding: Bombing can degrade military capacity and destroy infrastructure, but it does not produce governments more cooperative with the attacker.

Political outcomes require political processes – negotiation, institution-building, legitimate transitions of power.

Bombs cannot create any of these. Instead, what they reliably create is destruction, and destruction generates its own dynamics: rallying among the population, power vacuumsradicalization and cycles of retaliation.

The American record confirms this. In 2003, the George W. Bush administration launched “Shock and Awe” in Iraq with the explicit aim of regime change. The military objective was achieved in weeks. The political objective was never achieved at all.

The U.S. decision to disband the Iraqi army created a vacuum filled not by democratic reformers but by sectarian militias and eventually ISIS. The regime that eventually emerged was not friendly to American interests. It was deeply influenced by Iran.


Smoke billows as Libyan rebels move toward Moammar Gadhafi’s hometown of Sirte on March 28, 2011, after U.S.-led military operations. Aris Messinis/AFP/Getty Images

In 2011, the Obama administration led a NATO air campaign in Libya that quickly expanded from civilian protection into regime change. Dictator Moammar Gadhafi was overthrown and killed.

But there was no plan for political transition. Chaos and political instability have endured since. Asked what his “worst mistake” was as president, Barack Obama said, “Probably failing to plan for the day after, what I think was the right thing to do, in intervening in Libya.” Libya remains a failed state today.

The intervention also sent a powerful signal to countries pursuing nuclear weapons: Gaddhafi had dismantled his nuclear program in 2003. Eight years later, NATO destroyed his regime.

Even Kosovo, often cited as the success story of coercive air power, undermines the case. Seventy-eight days of NATO bombing did not, by themselves, compel Slobodan Milosevic, president of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, to withdraw.

What changed was the credible threat of a ground invasion combined with Russia’s withdrawal of diplomatic support. The political outcome – contested statehood, ongoing ethnic tensions – is hardly the stable governance that air power advocates promise.

The pattern is consistent: The United States repeatedly confuses its unmatched capacity to destroy from the air with the ability to dictate political outcomes.
Why this war?

The recent U.S. attacks on Iran raise a fundamental question: Why is the United States fighting this war at all?

The administration has declared regime change as its objective, justifying the campaign on the grounds of Iran’s nuclear program and missile capabilities.

But that nuclear program was being actively negotiated in Geneva days before the strikes. And Iran’s foreign minister told NBC the two sides were close to a deal. Then the bombs fell.

Iran did not attack America. And it currently does not have the capability to threaten the American homeland. What Iran challenges is Israel’s regional military dominance, and I believe it is Israel’s objective of neutralizing a rival that is driving this operation.

Israel targeted 30 senior Iranian leaders in the opening strikes. Israeli officials described it as a preemptive attack to “remove threats to the State of Israel.” I see the strategic logic for these killings as Israel’s, and Americans are absorbing the costs.

U.S. military bases in Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait, the UAE, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia have taken Iranian missile fire. American service members are in harm’s way – three have already been killed – not because Iran attacked them, but I believe because their president committed them to someone else’s war without a clear endgame.


Smoke rises from a reported Iranian strike in the area where the U.S. Embassy is located in Kuwait City on March 2, 2026. AFP via Getty Images

Each coercive step in this conflict – from the 2018 withdrawal from the nuclear deal, to the 2020 assassination of Qasem Soleimani, Iran’s most powerful military commander, to the June 2025 strikes – was framed as restoring leverage.

Each produced the opposite, eliminating diplomatic off-ramps, accelerating the very threats it aimed to contain.
The regime is not one man

Decapitation strikes assume that removing a leader removes the obstacle to political change. But Iran’s political system is institutional — the Guardian Council, the Assembly of Experts and the Revolutionary Guard have survived for four decades.

The system has succession mechanisms, but they were designed for orderly transitions, not for active bombardment. The group most likely to fill the vacuum is the Revolutionary Guard, whose institutional interest lies in escalation, not accommodation.

There is a deeper irony. The largest protests since 1979 swept Iran just weeks ago. A genuine domestic opposition was growing. The strikes have almost certainly destroyed that movement’s prospects.

Decades of research on rally-around-the-flag effects – the tendency of populations to unite behind their government when attacked by a foreign power – confirms that external attacks fuse regime and nation, even when citizens despise their leaders.

Iranians who were chanting “death to the dictator” are now watching foreign bombs fall on their cities during Ramadan, hearing reports of over 100 children killed in a strike on a girls school in Minab.

Trump’s call for Iranians to “seize control of your destiny” echoes a familiar pattern. In 1953, the CIA overthrew Iran’s democratically elected prime minister in the name of freedom.

That produced the Shah, the Shah’s brutal reign led to the Iranian Revolution in 1979, and the revolution produced the Islamic Republic now being bombed.

What comes next? And what guarantee is there that whatever emerges will be any friendlier to Israel or the United States?
What does success look like?

This is the question no one in Washington has answered. If the objective is regime change, who governs 92 million people after?

If the objective is stability, why are American bases across the Middle East absorbing missile fire?

There is no American theory of political endgame in Iran — only a theory of destruction. That theory has been tested in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya – and Iran itself over the preceding eight months. It has failed every time, not because of poor execution, but because the premise is flawed.

Air power can raze a government’s infrastructure. It cannot build the political order that must replace it. Iran, with its sophisticated military, near-nuclear capability, proxy networks spanning the region and a regime now martyred by foreign attack, will likely not be the exception.

U.S. law prohibits the assassination of foreign leaders, and instead Israel killed Iran’s supreme leader while American warplanes filled the skies overhead. Washington has called the result freedom at hand, but it has not answered the only question that matters: What comes next?


Author
Farah N. Jan
Senior Lecturer in International Relations, University of Pennsylvania

The Policy of “Maximum Pressure” on Iran Finds Its Ultimate Conclusion



 March 2, 2026

Photograph by Nathaniel St. Clair

Americans should not be fooled or led astray by the corporate media or the Beltway consultant class: fact-free fearmongering and warmongering about Iran have been among the most thoroughly bipartisan positions in Washington for many decades. For all of the turgid language within U.S. government and media circles about rogue regimes and state sponsors of terrorism, we almost never get around to mentioning the fact that the United States has long been the world’s greatest offender and violator of international law. It’s important to be clear about the facts of the matter: Iran is not a real threat to the United States, and it is Washington that has always been the aggressor in the relationship. Iran does not have intercontinental ballistic missiles, and Donald Trump himself has claimed repeatedly that Iran’s nuclear program was “obliterated” last summer.

The U.S. government itself bears much of the responsibility for the theocratic dictatorship that rules Iran today, the seeds of which grew after the CIA helped to overthrow the country’s elected leader in the summer of 1953. A few years later, with the eager assistance of the CIA and Israel’s intelligence services, among others, the Shah’s regime set up a brutal and repressive domestic security and intelligence service, called SAVAK. SAVAK’s extreme censorship and abuses helped to radicalize Iranians, who correctly associated the regime’s violence and authoritarianism with the foreign powers that helped to train and equip it. With rival political parties and civil society groups stamped out, religious organizations became the vehicle for political revolution, and thus for the revolution that ushered in the Islamic Republic.

Today, the U.S. government’s sanctions regime is a direct attack on innocent Iranians, not on an insulated ruling class in Tehran, which can easily and comfortably withstand the costs of Washington’s economic stranglehold. As scholars and commentators have long pointed out, “The breadth and scope of the United States’ ‘maximum pressure sanctions’ pushed Iranians into poverty and increased income inequality, leading to widespread suffering. They also weakened the population and made Iranians increasingly dependent on the state, which has become more militarized and securitized, leading to an overall sentiment of resignation.”

The Solidify Iran Sanctions Act (SISA), which passed the House last year, is part of the culmination of a decades-long trajectory, removing the sunset provision of the ‘96 Iran Sanctions Act. The SISA would make the earlier law’s sanctions authorities permanent unless repealed. (Senate passage of the SISA is not urgent since the ‘96 law will not expire until the end of the year.) The overwhelming bipartisan support for the SISA is one of many examples of how the “maximum pressure” framework toward Iran has become a permanent feature of U.S. law. Human rights groups have long called attention to the fact that innocent Iranians—who despise the government more than any American politician—bear the brunt of this cruel and inhumane maximum pressure policy.

This policy has long united ruling classes in Washington and Tel Aviv, and Benjamin Netanyahu’s maximalist position on Iran has steadily become the consensus in elite American politics. Israel’s prime minister was the first foreign leader to visit the White House after Trump came back to power, and he has returned more than any other leader, six times in just over a year, with his most recent visit coming earlier this month. This is significant in part because Israel’s longest-serving prime minister (over 18 years over three separate periods of 1996-1999, 2009-2021, and 2022-present) has lobbied the U.S. government for war with Iran obsessively for decades, both inside and outside of his official capacities. Speaking to the Knesset as a member in 1992, Netanyahu warned that Iran would “become autonomous in its ability to develop and produce a nuclear bomb” within three to five years. He repeated this and similar clearly false claims again and again in subsequent years, including during an infamous address to a joint session of Congress as prime minister in 1996.

But Israel is far from the only foreign country that has pushed the U.S. further toward conflict with Iran. The United States’ key allies in the Persian Gulf, for example, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, have maintained deep financial ties with the Washington think-tank and consultancy world, using their immense wealth to influence U.S. policy and press the case for aggressive and militaristic policies toward Iran. More recently, Qatar gave Trump a $400 million Boeing jet described as a “flying palace,” a move widely seen as an illegal and unconstitutional bribe. The UAE, meanwhile, has poured money into the Trump family, raising eyebrows with a “deal to acquire a 49% stake in World Liberty Financial, the crypto company founded by the Trump family and several allies in the fall of 2024 during Trump’s presidential campaign, was backed by Sheikh Tahnoon bin Zayed Al Nahyan, one of the most powerful officials in the UAE.”

The United States and Israel have been meddling violently and illegally in the affairs of the Iranian people for close to 75 years now. Both halves of the Washington uniparty bear responsibility for Trump’s latest imperialist foray and the catastrophic consequences it will bring. Whether they admit it or not, congressional leaders in both parties knew this was coming and could have pushed to ensure that the U.S. government would not enter into another war absent congressional action.

The sad truth is that they wanted this outcome, because it aligns with and serves powerful interests clustered around the Beltway, the military-industrial complex chief among them. They just didn’t want to have to vote for it or against it; they want to be reliable partners for those interests and social media celebrities without having to go on the record on anything important. Hence, the imperial presidency.

Americans continue to be surprised that we don’t learn from Vietnam, Iraq, etc., but the truth is our openly corrupt and imperialistic ruling class has learned a great deal, and they are now sure that we will never stand up to their villainy here at home or abroad. The U.S. government long ago abandoned even the merest pretense that its foreign policy of aggressive wars of choice and mass civilian starvation has anything at all to do with the safety or our concrete interests of Americans. What Americans need to learn is not that Washington’s illegal wars have failed, but that they have failed for us and the world while they enrich a tiny elite of war profiteers.

David S. D’Amato is an attorney, businessman, and independent researcher. He is a Policy Advisor to the Future of Freedom Foundation and a regular opinion contributor to The Hill. His writing has appeared in Forbes, Newsweek, Investor’s Business Daily, RealClearPolitics, The Washington Examiner, and many other publications, both popular and scholarly. His work has been cited by the ACLU and Human Rights Watch, among others.