An interesting reaction from Beijing highlights an evaluation of risk from the lack of oil flowing from Iran.

According to most evaluated data, China was buying more than 80% of Iran’s shipped oil. That’s according to data from 2025 as analyzed by Kpler and published in January by Reuters.

Iranian oil always had limited buyers due to U.S. sanctions. However, China purchased on average 1.38 million barrels per day of Iranian oil last year, according to Kpler. That represented about 13.4% of the total 10.27 million bpd of oil it imported by sea.

With President Trump previously cutting of discounted oil from Venezuela, two things unfolded.  First, the Venezuela oil was no longer sold with non-petrodollar currencies; Venezuela oil is now being sold on the standard oil market.  Secondly, with the Venezuela oil disrupted China would become even more dependent on Iranian oil shipments if they wanted to retain the discounted rate.

How big is the financial difference?  According to Reuters, “Iranian Light crude has traded at around $8 to $10 a barrel below ICE Brent on a delivered basis to China since December.” … “That means Chinese refiners save about $8 to $10 a barrel if they buy Iranian Light rather than non-sanctioned oil.”

Additionally, as noted before Operation Epic Fury began, “Iran has a record amount of oil on the water, equivalent to around 50 days of output, as China has bought less because of sanctions and Tehran seeks to protect its supplies from the risk of U.S. strikes, Kpler said.”

Buying discounted oil from Venezuela, Iran and Russia resulted in billions of dollars saved by China.  The only production venue not currently disrupted would be purchases from Moscow.  This increases the dependency, but the purchase price may no longer carry any discounted value, at least not at the previous rate.

(more…)

Secretary of State Marco Rubio updates the media on current activity surrounding Operation Epic Fury.

Secretary Rubio begins with an update on what Americans in the region need to know. Rubio asks all Americans to record their status with the U.S. State Department. [State Dept. Website] To get the latest updates visit http://travel.state.gov/destination and enroll to receive alerts directly at http://step.state.gov. Americans who need consular help can reach us 24/7 by phone: +1-202-501-4444 (from abroad) and +1-888-407-4747 (from the U.S. and Canada).

Rubio then outlines the latest report on a drone hitting near a U.S. embassy in Dubai.  A drone struck a parking lot adjacent to a chancellery building and a fire broke out.  No Americans were hurt or injured. The consulate was already on minimal staffing.

Secretary Rubio then provides an update on the general disposition of the conflict effort.  Rubio notes the two most powerful air forces in the world are about to go even more severe in our combat activity deep inside Iran.

The traditional frame of reference for pundits surrounds “the escalation trap.”  Most of them are so stuck in their old Washington DC view of nation building they just cannot see another approach.

How do you avoid the trap? You don’t play the game.

You don’t try to control the outcome on the ground.  You change behavior, without being on the ground.

(more…)

When addressing Greenland’s strategic value within U.S. Arctic defense efforts, President Trump argued that although the European Union and NATO insisted there was no need for American control —promising instead to marshal their combined military strength to defend the territory— he remained skeptical of their assurances. Trump’s remarks were met with swift shock and visible dismay. Pearls were clutched and jaws stood agape.

However, it only took a few weeks for a moment of clarity to surface following the Israeli/U.S. decision to strike Iran and eliminate the long-standing nuclear threat. Suddenly Great Britain and Spain tell the U.S. they will not allow American military use of their joint airbases.  Once, again President Trump’s lack of trust in NATO proved correct.

This visible example of unidirectional self-interest is happening at the same time European and British leadership are requesting demanding the United States provide the security guarantees for their Ukraine ambitions.  The contrast is stark.

Concerns about Islamist extremism within the U.K. appear to influence the thinking of British Prime Minister Keir Starmer. With a significant number of immigrants from Muslim-majority countries now living in Great Britain, some argue that actions perceived as antagonizing more radical elements abroad could have domestic repercussions within the U.K.  That said, the contrast in support is so stark that opposition leadership inside the U.K. are now confronting the British Prime Minister.

.

(more…)

Susan Kokinda and the Lyndon LaRouche network give their perspective on the British reaction to the U.S. strikes against Iran.  The analysis has value from a review of the historic relationship of the British imperialist policy toward matters of foreign entanglement and the control mechanisms that have historically flowed from the U.K

As a consequence of British government policy much of the Kokinda analysis accurately touches on the root cause of U.K response. However, the emphasis on the modern UK government as the lead of a global network is not always as severe or ¹complicated as the Lyndon LaRouche network would espouse.  WATCH:

¹Great Britain has imported a large percentage of extreme Islamists.  As Iran is confronted, and as Israel is viewed as a significant beneficiary to that confrontation, the leftist British government -represented by majority base supporting Prime Minister Keir Starmer- is politically trying to retain stability.  Starmer does not want to upset the Muslim population within the U.K.  That is a significant political facet undiscussed in the Kokinda review of British response.

Additionally, the Trump Doctrine in confronting totalitarian dictators, or oppressive government systems, has always been to support the rise of the authentic ‘nationalist’ voice of the nation in question.  President Trump has no personal or policy motive to drive the outcome when the authentic rise of the voice happens. Instead, he seeks to remove the anti-American sentiment carried by the former -hopefully replaced- regime.

In all of President Trump’s prior foreign policy examples we see he focuses on creating opportunity for liberty and freedom, but he does not seek to determine how that liberty and freedom are ultimately expressed – so long as there is no negative outcome to American interests.

(more…)

At least from my limited perspective, the biggest surprise coming from Operation Epic Fury so far is the counterstrike reaction from Iran toward the rest of the region.  I have reached out to several people about this, and everyone has a different response.

Within a few hours of the operation against Iran beginning, the Iranian regime began firing counterstrikes against the entire Arab region.  Instead of their traditional approach toward striking back at limited U.S. military bases in/around Iraq and/or Israel, Iran began firing missiles and drones into the UAE, Kuwait, Oman, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Bahrain.

Brief recap map of the first 24 hours of attack sites, contrast with a map of known U.S. military bases.

This seemingly wanton striking out against the entire middle east region was not something CTH expected to see.

Additionally, the Iranian targets were not just limited to U.S. military bases, the missiles and drones were launching toward all kinds of random infrastructure throughout the Arab world.  Most of these missiles and drones have been intercepted; however, no one has yet established a reasonable thesis as to why Iran chose this approach.

In a recent interview with Jake Tapper, President Trump also said the White House and Pentagon were surprised at the civilian targets selected by Iran for retaliatory strikes.  The White House, State Dept and U.S. military did not expect to see Iran retaliate against regional allied partners, and the reaction has been for the Arab countries to be even more supportive of the attacks against Iran.

All of the Arab countries that seemingly would have sat on the sidelines and given tacit support, are now openly providing support and even expressing a willingness to get involved with their own military to assist.  This is a first.

(more…)

Many people were befuddled when I shared the statement that FBI Director Kash Patel really needs to get his arms around his FBI agency quickly, because operatives inside the FBI are currently working to attack other cabinet level national security and intelligence officials. One of those examples is outlined in this interview by Kristi Noem.

DHS Secretary Kristi Noem notes how officials within the government (I’m specifically citing the FBI as the origin) have worked to conduct surveillance on her team, planted spyware on her devices and monitor the activity within the Dept of Homeland Security.

Watch this interview with DHS Secretary Noem and you will get a more comprehensive understanding of what her and all the other National Security officials (DNI, NCTC, DHS, ICE, FEMA, etc.) are having to deal with. WATCH:

Patrick Bet-David sits down with DHS Secretary Kristi Noem to discuss her claim that “they spied on me,” the discovery of a secret DHS file room, the fallout surrounding El Mencho and cartel operations, and efforts to identify and remove alleged deep state actors inside the Department of Homeland Security.

TIME STAMPS:
00:00 – Show intro
04:54. – South Dakota Governor Journey
13:20 – China Threat Rising
18:09 – DHS Files & Spy Concerns

(more…)

Yesterday the alarming story surfaced of Biden-era FBI officials working for Jack Smith conducting phone record surveillance on Kash Patel and Susie Wiles in 2022 and 2023 when Donald Trump was organizing his second term candidacy.

Beyond the initial element of subpoenas for Patel and Wiles phone records was an alarming assertion made inside the Reuters report stating:

“[…] In 2023, the FBI recorded a phone call between Wiles and her attorney, according to two FBI officials. Wiles’ attorney was aware that the call was being recorded, and consented to it, but Susie Wiles was not.” (source)

That statement is shocking on many levels.  There is no legal mechanism for the FBI to gain wiretap authority to record a phone conversation between a lawyer and his client.  Every legal cannon that underpins the American legal system forbids such an intrusion.

Any lawyer who would consent to his client being recorded by the FBI while keeping the client unaware would be disbarred and lose their license.

No judge or legal authority would even consider approving a warrant for such a wiretap, and inside the judiciary any of the content from such a violative breech would be immediately nullified in any capacity.

Reporting by Marc Caputo of Vice News now reflects the lawyer categorically denying being aware of his conversation with Susie Wiles being intercepted or recorded.  “The lawyer representing Susie Wiles at the time of this incident categorically denies he allowed his client to be recorded by the FBI w/out her consent.  I understand she believes him & that the Biden-era FBI may have lied about it.  Here’s what the lawyer told me: “If I ever pulled a stunt like that I wouldn’t – and shouldn’t – have a license to practice law. I’m as shocked as Susie.” (source)

As the story now rests. If the FBI does indeed have a recording of a private phone call between Susie Wiles and her attorney, the recording itself could have only come from an illegal wiretap by rogue elements of the FBI working in coordination with Jack Smith.  No judge would ever approve of such a violative action.

If such a recording and wiretap does factually exist, Jack Smith and the top elements of the former DOJ (Merrick Garland and Lisa Monaco) together with FBI leadership Director Christopher Wray, now have a lot to answer to.  Again, that is if the predicate claim is factual; if a recording of such an intercept does factually exist.

This is certainly a story to watch closely and see who exactly is asking the right questions to get the right answers.

(more…)

Clinton is claiming that she didn’t know Jeffrey Epstein.  However, a leaked photograph of the deposition shows the author of her statement likely sitting right next to her.  They paused the deposition because the picture was made public.

Apparently, Cheryl Mills is still around as Clinton’s personal lawyer.

[SOURCE]

(more…)

The summary of the story basically circles back to that NSA/CIA whistleblower intercept they previously were using to attack DNI Tulsi Gabbard.  Now that the whistleblower’s lawyer (same lawyer as last CIA whistleblower, Ciaramella) has leaked the subject of the conversation was Jared Kushner the democrats really want to know the details.

Two foreign nationals (unknown countries) were discussing the U.S. position toward Iran. In their conversation they talked about Jared Kushner. Their conversation was intercepted by NSA/CIA using an “exceptionally sensitive surveillance method.”  The intercept was written, evaluated and determined to be “gossip” but given to the ODNI, Gabbard.

The whistleblower was upset the intercept was not shared with the larger intelligence apparatus. Thus, they were angry at Gabbard.  The ODNI followed the distribution for the whistleblower complaint, but not the underlying intercepted details of the conversation.

The White House has now asserted “executive privilege” over the content of the intercept, thereby bolstering the position of not sharing what was previously determined to be gossip.  The DNI was asked for the details, and Gabbard has told the Democrats the White House has asserted privilege.  The House and Senate Intelligence committee democrats are now big mad they don’t get to read the gossip.

(VIA WSJ) – WASHINGTON—The Trump administration told Congress it won’t share with lawmakers the classified intelligence that led to a whistleblower complaint against U.S. spy chief Tulsi Gabbard, citing presidential claims of executive privilege.

(more…)

According to media reports and statements from FBI Director Kash Patel, both Patel and Susie Wiles had their telephone records subpoenaed by the FBI in 2022 and 2023 when both were private citizens. This is during the time when Donald Trump was being investigated by Special Counsel Jack Smith.

Within the reporting by Reuters, at least one phone call between Susie Wiles and her attorney was recorded by the FBI without her knowledge. As the story is outlined Wiles’ attorney was working with the FBI and knew the conversation was being captured, Wiles did not.

FBI Director Kash Patel has reportedly fired 10 FBI agents who were involved in the process of reviewing and intercepting communications as part of their work on the Jack Smith case. Internal FBI offices are not happy with Patel’s action against those officials.

(REUTERS) – The FBI subpoenaed records of phone calls made by Kash Patel and Susie Wiles, now the FBI director and White House Chief of Staff, when they were both private citizens in 2022 and 2023 during the federal probe of Donald Trump, Patel told Reuters on Wednesday.

Reuters is the first to report on the FBI’s actions that took place during the Biden administration, largely when Special Counsel Jack Smith was investigating whether Trump had interfered with the 2020 election and had hidden classified documents at Mar-a-Lago, according to Patel. Smith was appointed to take over that probe in November 2022.

(more…)