Trump Rejects Iran 7-Day Ceasefire Plan, Likely To Renew Bombing After Midterms

    Trump is stuck. There is no way out of the Iran war which would not be extremely painful politically. The right time to exit was a few weeks after the start of the conflict when he realized he had made a mistake and that the Iranians were circling the wagons. 

   The real question is: Was it going to happen anyway? AIPAC is not a new entity and has been working its way through the American political system for decades to the point that now almost all American congressmen are bought. 

   Likewise, Epstein did a splendid job for MOSAD by entrapping those who couldn't be bought. Trump is obviously one of them. Where are the files by the way? 

   More fundamentally, as we discussed in the previous article, when countries make mistakes they always tend to double down instead of retreating. This is both the case for Trump as well as his instinct to never admit wrongdoing. This may work in real estate but in politics, it is deadly. Many ruined cities under the sands were once the capitals of proud empires who made a wrong move and in a few short years were history. Xi Jinping must have been smiling inside when hearing that America was back on top, although his own country is not out of the woods and the fall of the mighty American empire will not be without nasty consequences for everybody else.   

Trump Rejects Iran 7-Day Ceasefire Plan, Likely To Renew Bombing After Midterms

Summary

• Trump rejects Iran proposal: WSJ

• Tehran denes reports of 'technical talks' after it proposed 7-day roadmap to end the war and (eventually) restart nuclear talks.

• Hormuz reopening discussed in exchange for US concessions in NY, including lifting the blockade. 

• Tehran seeks sanctions relief, declares will hold to conditions, including restored oil exports and access to frozen funds.

• US-Iran talks reportedly show progress, with Qatar helping bridge differences.

• Escalation risk remains: Iran threatens a broader response - to 'spread war to Indian Ocean' if attacked again.

Strait of Hormuz traffic returns to normal by December 31?
Yes 27% · No 74%
View full market & trade on Polymarket

Trump Rejects Iran's 7-Day Ceasefire Proposal

That was fast--huge late Friday night bombshell via The Wall Street Journal:

President Trump has rejected Iran’s proposal for a seven-day ceasefire and has told aides he expects to resume bombing Iran after the November midterms, U.S. officials said.

Tehran’s proposal would have reopened the Strait of Hormuz and resumed nuclear talks in return for the U.S. lifting its blockade of Iranian ports, which is causing deep damage to the country’s economy. Trump says openly that Tehran is begging for a deal after the midterms that dismantles its nuclear program.

But privately Trump is skeptical Iran would meet his demands and has told his staff that he sees a renewed bombing campaign as likely, the officials said. 

Where do we go from here? So much for oil prices being artificially kept down, as the entire Friday drop is set to be erased.

Trump is reportedly expected to resume bombing Iran after the midterm elections, WSJ says.

OR, is this a classic Trump 'tough' negotiating ploy? The hardliners in the IRGC are unlikely to play ball.

The Friday Afternoon Denial

Via state media Fars:

Axios and Al Jazeera's claim about Iran-US talks denied, reports Fars; News regarding another round of talks is false, and claims technical experts from Iran were sent to NY to join the talks, is untrue

This was either the result of more premature or false Axios reporting, or else there's a possible in strategy divergence between IRGC vs. presidential delegation in New York. More from Fars:

IRGC Spokesperson says we will not stop punishing the US until Iran's seven conditions are met; our missiles are capable of destroying America's multi-layered defenses, Fars reports

'Technical Talks'

Are we back to headline ping-pong pushing down oil prices?

Latest: Iran-US negotiations in New York have moved beyond initial diplomatic contacts into a more detailed technical phase, with sources in Tehran describing the atmosphere as increasingly positive, CBS reports, citing Al Jazeera.

And an official Iranian caution, or possibly even brush off, in reaction... Tehran signaling it intends to stick by its original conditions:

Senior Iranian official says Strait of Hormuz will remain closed, no nuclear talks with US until Iran's conditions are met, Reuters reports, citing sources; Iran will make no concessions on its nuclear program

AJ: A US official told Al Jazeera says Washington is in a strong position and controls the Strait of Hormuz, therefore we are not in a hurry to reach an agreement with Iran

For a rehash of what's played out over the last 24 hours on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly meeting:

• Iran's proposed seven-day plan to reopen the Strait of Hormuz if the US drops its blockade is being discussed as an accelerated version of a previously discussed 60-day process, and would include urgent measures to get both countries back into direct negotiations over Iran's nuclear programme.
• The key Iranian demands under discussion include sanctions relief, the lifting of restrictions on oil exports and access to frozen Iranian funds.
• The two sides also continue to discuss arrangements for the Strait of Hormuz, including whether Iran and Oman could return to a form of joint management under an agreed framework involving regional countries and the United States, as well as arrangements governing the passage of US vessels.
• Despite the outstanding issues, sources in Tehran characterised the negotiations as making some progress, with talks continuing and Qatar working to bridge differences between the two sides.

Also, President Trump has just said he discussed the Iran conflict with China's Xi.

And crude tumbles...

BUT...

Independent Iranian Journliast Ghaderi reiterates that the narrative presented by some US media is incomplete

7-Day Roadmap Proposed

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Aragchi has newly proposed to the US side a seven-day roadmap aimed at ending the war, while the top Iranian delegation is still in New York City engaged in deep diplomacy on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly.

Aragchi is said to be planning to stay through the weekend while waiting on a US response to the plan. So far it seems Tehran hasn't backed down from its core conditions, and its roadmap proposal is said to closely parallel the 14-point Memorandum of Understanding that was signed by President Trump back in June, but which has since completely collapsed. The plan is new but is still being largely seen as just repackaged.

"Araghchi stressed that Iran was ready to begin putting the plan into effect as soon as Washington agreed to it," Al Jazeera reports.

Interestingly, also last night Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian told journalists, "We don't want it to get to the midterm elections." He added: "We wish Americans to return to the MoU before the midterms." Here's where things stand in terms of Iran's position being represented in New York:

• Iran's Foreign Minister Araghchi said the Strait of Hormuz can reopen if certain conditions are met by the US and that it would be better to implement before the Midterms, according to a Sky reporter.
• IRGC spokesperson warned in the event of another attack, Iran's method of defence will change including geography of the confrontation, the type of equipment and weapons used, and targets in defensive operations in line with new conditions.

This contradicted Trump's words given to the UN General Assembly during his speech. He said "They’re waiting to see how I do in the midterm election."

White House spokesperson Anna Kelly had in follow-up to Trump's address said, "The President is courageously ensuring that such an evil country never possesses a nuclear weapon, which will make the entire world safer and more stable."

Iran has said it will not be 'bullied' - but Pezeshkian appears to be offering something on the nuclear front alongside this seven-day roadmap overture, or at least according to a future timeline assuming a ceasefire is agreed to.

He explained in a Fox interview that in accord the framework of international law, Iran could give eventually up highly enriched uranium. But he was also fundamentally using the moment to highlight who is not a signatory to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty - Israel.

Pezeshkian further said it was up to the United States to choose when the war would end. "It's America that must choose whether it wants to end this or not," Pezeshkian said in response to a question by Fox's Bret Baier.

Tehran has meanwhile said it is ready to escalate, and even spread the war beyond the Persian Gulf region, into the Indian Ocean for example (where the UK-US have the Diego Garcia base).

Further UNGA Highlights

Recap of some of the highlights from the UN this week, via Middle East Eye:

• The US-Israeli war on Iran and the Israel-Palestine conflict continued to occupy prime positions on the fourth day of the UN General Assembly. Somali President Mohamed Hassan Sheikh Mohamud said his country was "suffering" as a result of the US-Israeli war, which has driven up the price of energy and food. Meanwhile, European Union Council president said the EU supports efforts to “find a solution to the conflict". He added that "freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz must be preserved without conditions and without hindrance".

• Crown Prince of Kuwait Sabah Al Khaled condemned the "illegal Iranian aggression" in his address to the UN Security Council on Thursday. Kuwait was one of the Gulf states hardest hit by Iran in retaliation for the US-Israeli war on the Islamic Republic. Kuwait is home to tens of thousands of US troops and military bases. US facilities in Kuwait were attacked along with civilian sites like Kuwait airport and energy infrastructure.

• Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu gave a pugnacious speech at the United Nations General Assembly, attacking everyone from New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani to Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and the leaders of Western Europe, as he tried to counter Israel’s growing international isolation. 

• Meanwhile, hundreds of protesters took up positions around the UN headquarters before Netanyahu's arrival and continued protesting while he spoke inside. Support for Palestinian statehood and disappointment over the ongoing attacks on Gaza were repeatedly brought up during the event.

• Vice President of Yemen Abdullah Abdulkader al-Alimi-Bawzer condemned the Houthis in his address to the UN General Assembly and tried to rally the global community to help fight the group. He said the government of Yemen had supported a peace initiative backed by the governments of Saudi Arabia and Oman, while the Houthis rejected it and "instead escalated their actions in the Red Sea and Bab el-Mandeb to serve an Iranian agenda".

Overnight Developments Recap

via Newsquawk

• Iran Foreign Minister Araghchi said Iran presented a proposal to US through mediators this week to reopen the Strait of Hormuz and restart negotiations towards a final deal, while it called for US to meet certain conditions within 7 days, according to CNN.
• Iranian President Pezeshkian said in Fox News interview that Iran does not want a nuclear bomb. They reached an agreement with the US President that was signed, and are still ready to move forward based on the same principles, adds it wasn't Iran that closed the Strait of Hormuz and it was open. They didn't seek war and that it was imposed on them, while they don't seek war but will defend themselves. They didn't start the war but will respond decisively.
• Iranian President Pezeshkian said Iran is ready for an agreement with the US and makes demands only within the framework of international law and could give up highly enriched uranium if it reaches an agreement with the US, according to TASS.
• Iran's President Pezeshkian said Tehran wants to revive its ceasefire memorandum of understanding with the US before the November midterm elections, saying Iran does not want talks delayed until after the vote. said:. Iran is open to inspections of its nuclear facilities and denies that Tehran is seeking to assassinate President Trump or his family.
• Iran's Foreign Minister Araghchi said the Strait of Hormuz can reopen if certain conditions are met by the US and that it would be better to implement before the Midterms, according to a Sky reporter.
• IRGC spokesperson warned in the event of another attack, Iran's method of defence will change including geography of the confrontation, the type of equipment and weapons used, and targets in defensive operations in line with new conditions.
• Iranian Brigadier General Sheikh said "we seek to expand our capabilities and reconsider our tactics and technologies", via Al Mayadeen.
• Sources say a return to the June 18 memorandum of understanding between Iran and the US is no longer sought by either side, with both seeking amendments to some clauses, further complicating negotiations, Al-Akhbar reported.
• Pakistan's Defence Minister said intensive efforts are underway to establish a mechanism for ending the conflict as quickly as possible and reopening the Strait of Hormuz, according to Tasnim.

Will We See Western Capitals Fall?

    No, unfortunately, we will see absolutely nothing. Decadence is relentless but a slow motion process. Decades after the fall of Rome, in many parts of the empire, most people still considered themselves citizen of a Roman empire which was already gone. It is a mix of adaptation and not wanting to see. 

   What's going on in Europe is almost exactly the same. The hollowing of economic capacity, the invasion of "barbarians" and the ideological drift. 

   Very few Europeans, even today consider that Net Zero is a mistake. They truly want to "save" a planet which doesn't need saving. China is proving that by investing in the right technologies while maintaining the old ones, the energy transitions is much smoother and faster but to no avail. "CO2 bad, electric good" is ideology. The whole industrial might of Europe, especially in Germany, is dying on that altar but no awakening will happen until it is too late. The British are just realizing that their defense industry is almost completely dependent on its "enemies". Go figure. Or rather don't. Isn't it what happen when almost everything is gone which is the case in the UK? How do you re-industrialize when the engineers are gone, the knowledge evaporated and the factories closed? This is the circle England must now square. Good Luck!

   Let's not talk about the immigrants in Europe but to say that the wound is self inflicted and just as Net Zero, entirely ideological. Then how do you get rid of them when most are now second or third generation born locally? There is no solution. There was no solution either for the Germans in Roman times. Most were living peacefully on the border regions often representing a majority of the legions' armies. They were romanized and moving in and out of the Roman border which for them was nonexistent since German tribes were living on both sides. In reality, when you look closely, we can only talk about an invasion in retrospect. Up close, nothing much happened except people reacting to economic incentives just as they do today. Only later were some of the tribes pushed by the Hun but mostly they migrated peacefully to areas which were mostly empty founding new settlements.     

   The worst side of these problems is the unwillingness to actually see reality. This once again is due to the ideological aspect of anything "social". You basically cannot talk people out of a general consensus which has been formed over decades. Most societies prefer to fail vaingloriously than recognize their mistakes. Voices of reason exist. They are just not listened to. 

Authored by J.B. Shurk via American Thinker,

Consider these recent news headlines:

(1) "NYC Turns Back to Gas Buses After Finding Out the Hard Way That the Electric Versions Have Big Problems,"

(2) "As a Former Head of MI6 it's Clear That Britain's Climate Policy is Leaving Us Dangerously Exposed to Our Enemies," and

(3) "Spain: 74% of sex-crime suspects are foreigners in Basque Country."

 

They come from three different Western nations and involve three dissimilar subjects - public transportation, national security, and violent crime - yet each news story exposes the real-world consequences of government failure:

(1) In order to pursue "Net Zero" carbon goals, New York dumped a ton of money into electric buses that are too expensive and entirely unreliable for the city's needs.

(2) Britain's former top spy is finally ready to admit publicly that his country's delusional obsession with "climate change" has devastated the United Kingdom's capacity for industrial and energy self-sufficiency, rendering the former superpower dependent on foreign adversaries for future survival.

(3) Even though foreigners make up only 10% of the Basque region's population, they account for 74% of rape arrests, 73% of homicide arrests, 95% of drunk-driving arrests, 80% of theft arrests, and 78% of violent robberies.

What's so striking about these news stories is their "well, duh!" factor. An ordinary, rational person would have no problem predicting the failures of a citywide electric bus fleet, the offshoring of a nation's critical industries, or open border policies that invite foreign invasion. Yet mayors, governors, and prime ministers have pursued these catastrophic programs anyway, while heads of espionage agencies and millions of government bureaucrats either support their harmful decisions or shamefully stay silent.

The middle article links to the transcript of a speech that Sir Richard Dearlove delivered to the Global Warming Policy Foundation in London last week. It was a good speech concerning an important subject, and Dearlove deserves some credit for articulating a point of view that goes against the powerful flow of "politically correct" Western orthodoxy. But he gave this speech from the comfortable perch of quasi-retirement with little to lose aside from a few honorary board positions. Where was his voice when he was in a position to actually do something about the U.K.'s suicidal energy policies?

In his speech, Dearlove explained how his Cold War experiences taught him "that the country's war-fighting potential resided in its industry, that our most vulnerable link was the fuel chain...and that our industrial base could be rebuilt and repaired." Now, however, there is "very little industry left to protect, and we cannot rebuild non-existent industries which lie in foreign jurisdictions beyond our reach." Dearlove concluded that the U.K. must "rebuild the strategic industries we require to ensure that we can defend our island fortress and be a reliable ally to friendly democracies around the world."

These are absolutely true statements. Blue-collar workers throughout the West have been making these arguments for fifty years. Had an ordinary Brit with few credentials been in charge of MI6, that person would have been screaming profanities and ringing alarm bells long before the U.K. closed its last coal mines and steel factories. Shouldn't that embarrass Britain's "ruling elites"? And if it doesn't, shouldn't "ruling elites" be considered a danger to the public's prosperity and security?

Long-overdue, post-career wake-up calls bring to my mind President Eisenhower's 1961 Farewell Address during which he warned Americans against the growing dangers from an emerging "military-industrial complex."

Although his turn of phrase continues to be used sixty-five years later, it would have been nice if the former Supreme Allied Commander and five-star general had used his two terms as president of the United States to tackle that problem before it got completely out of hand. Eisenhower certainly had the expertise to see its destructive potential more clearly than most, but he chose to outline the threat on his way out the door and leave it for others to solve. Some historians believe that parts of the MIC had a hand in President Kennedy's assassination, and if that is true, then Eisenhower's failure to promptly act had extraordinarily far-reaching consequences that included the death of his successor.

The generations of Americans who were born after Eisenhower's tenure have given him much credit for recognizing that the symbiotic relationship between Big Government and Big Business was evolving into an unconstitutional and anti-American oligarchy that we know today as the "permanent bureaucracy," the "ruling class," or the "Deep State."

Perhaps if the American general-turned-president had neutralized the Deep State in the first decade after WWII, we would not have endured some of the worst chapters in recent American history, including the Vietnam War, the debasement of the U.S. dollar, the FBI's soft coup d'état against President Nixon, fifty years of "global warming" con games, sixty years of mass immigration from third-world nations, NAFTA's industry-killing bloodbath, China's entry into the WTO, the 9/11 Islamic terror attacks, the Global War on Terrorism, Obamacare's government takeover of medicine, the Russia Collusion Hoax, the COVID information war against the Bill of Rights, numerous rigged elections decided by unlawful voters and mail-in-ballot fraud, multiple assassination attempts on President Trump, the assassination of Charlie Kirk, leftist-inspired violence against conservatives, and the Democrats' manufactured AI fearmongering going on today.

Diagnosing problems without taking concrete steps to solve those problems produces a perverse phenomenon:

The worse unsolved problems become, the more prescient the person warning about them appears.

Toward the end of Dearlove's speech, Britain's former top spy argued that the government of which he was an integral part had monumentally failed:

"The first responsibility of government is the safety of the nation. However, successive governments have forgotten this, and Britain is now caught in an energy trap of its own making. As with rebuilding our armed forces, it will take a significant national effort to extract us and bring us back to a position of safety. The task is urgent."

This is certainly true.

The question is why so many successive governments in the U.K. and across the West have betrayed their own citizens and made their nations much less safe.

Because normal citizens would never have offshored their own industrial and manufacturing jobs to adversarial nations such as communist China.

Normal citizens would not have conspired with transnational human trafficking gangs to import tens of millions of unassimilable illegal aliens.

Normal citizens would not have imposed "green energy" regulations that make it harder for farmers to grow food and for businesses to pay their bills.

Normal citizens would not mandate that unreliable electric vehicles replace internal combustion engines while power grids crash due to insufficient supplies of wind and solar energies.

These kinds of policies are so obviously foolish and suicidal that only our credentialed "ruling class" could justify them.

Does that tell us that our bureaucrats are too stupid to keep our nations safe, as Dearlove rightly recognizes as the first responsibility of government? Or are these self-destructive national policies proof that Western bureaucracies are waging war against Western citizens?

Certainly Western governments are guilty of failing their peoples. The only question remaining is whether their failures stem from a combination of incompetence and hubris or treason and malice.

As Western citizens ponder that question, they are quickly taking matters into their own hands.

Spaniards in Ceuta are destroying government shelters built for foreign invaders.

A British village has voted to secede from the U.K. after the government announced plans to house an army of foreign immigrants next door.

The price of government betrayal might soon be the fall of a Western capital.

Recognizing problems is not good enough. Governments that cause more problems than they fix do not deserve to survive.

Greenland Mining Company Plans To Double Size Of Rare-Earth Mine As US Signs Agreement

    Don't get fooled, Greenland is the noise, the real battle of the 21st Century is over resources. Not just oil which powers everything or almost, but all resources: Land, water, air, minerals, metals, fertilizers and especially the most complex to acquire; rare earths.

   We have already entered a period of penury so what we will see over the coming years is not a steady rise of prices but a tumultuous dance between production constraints and demand destruction resulting in very sharp and violent rises followed by drastic falls when demand falter. This is unavoidable and already what we are witnessing. 

   Governments are not panicking yet. They are wrong. They should. Later is always too late. It takes a decade to build a mine and upstream constraints can easily wreak havoc with an unprepared economy which is currently the case everywhere, both in the West and where factories run on lean supply chains. 

   And then of course there are rare earth metals which are hard, difficult and expensive to produce and also happen to be indispensable to high tech industries. I suspect that one of the main reasons why the US cannot increase easily its military production of advanced weapons is due to the new export limits from China. (But this being strategic to the highest degree, you probably won't hear much about it in the media.)

   Finally, the unmistakable rise of tensions all over the world is also intimately linked to resources and as they dwindle and by nature become more difficult to produce (the law of declining return on investment which guaranty that we extract the cheapest ore and resource first), wars are bound to break out both in likely and less probable places, again as we are seeing right now. Buckle up, the roller coaster has reached the top.      

Authored by Jill McLaughlin via The Epoch Times,

Days after President Donald Trump announced a security agreement with Greenland and Denmark, Greenland Mines applied on Sept. 21 to double the size of its rare earth mine to supply magnet metals needed for electric vehicles, wind turbines, and defense systems on the island.

The North Carolina-based company's Sarfartoq rare earth district in southwest Greenland would expand from 74 square miles to about 175 square miles if approved.

"This application is about building Sarfartoq at district scale," said Bo Moller Stensgaard, president of Greenland Mines in a statement.

Greenland Mines is developing a rare earth neodymium and praseodymium project that could reduce the Western Hemisphere's dependence on China for the magnet rare earth minerals. China-based processors control at least 75 percent of the global market for all rare earth elements.

The Greenland Mines project is expected to produce about one-third of the world's neodymium-praseodymium oxide refined outside of China, serving as a key source of the rare earth ingredients needed for energy, transportation, and defense technologies.

China's export restrictions on rare earths have driven prices up in the past year. The Trump administration has focused on supporting and investing in domestic rare earth operations, but a supply of ore is still needed, according to Greenland Mines.

With the signing of the security agreement, Trump said no U.S. adversary could "make sensitive investments [in Greenland] without our express written approval."

"Greenland hosts some of the largest known undeveloped rare earth deposits in the Western world, and a framework that screens adversary capital out of the island makes those deposits more clearly available to allied supply chains," the company stated Tuesday.

Greenland Mines' project includes an open pit and underground mining operation at the site. Initial assessment of the materials at the mine estimate the value at about $2.05 billion, according to the company.

The project would produce rare earth elements used in high-performance permanent magnets.

Critical metals stocks surged Monday on news of the deal, and Greenland-linked market shares rallied when the markets opened.

Greenland Energy, a privately owned Texas company, has an agreement to drill on the Jameson oil and gas project in the Jameson Land Basin on the eastern coast of Greenland. The company, founded in 2025, began shipping drilling equipment to Greenland in late July.

Greenland Mines’ expanding Sarfartoq rare earth district in southwest Greenland. The existing exploration license, outlined in yellow, hosts the Sarfartoq Carbonatite Complex, the ST1 neodymium-praseodymium deposit and several known but less-developed rare earth zones. The new eastern exploration license application is shown in red. Greenland Mines LTD

Critical Metals Corp. is developing the Tanbreez Rare Earth Project in southern Greenland - one of the world's largest deposits with a high concentration of heavy rare-earth elements.

The company's Romanian refinery is also expected to process about 28,000 tons per year of rare earth and critical metal products, including 26,000 tons of high-purity silicon dioxide powder, or silica, used in food, pharmaceuticals, paints, plastics, rubber, ceramics, tech, and electronics.

US Diesel Craters, EU Prices Skyrocket As Politico Reports White House Preparing Plan For 90-Day Export Ban

   Export Ban: Damned if you do, Damned if you don't.

   This is why America should never have elected a real estate magnate with the habit of weaseling his way out of trouble through bankruptcy or other shady deals. (Not that there was much choice between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris but that's another subject.)

   The world economy doesn't work that way. You need a real strategy and if you don't, you end up facing the wall with no exit left which is now the case with Iran, Oil, Russia, China... basically everywhere you look, the outlook is grim. 

   The gut feeling of Trump as explained in "The Art of the Deal" is almost completely irrelevant in international relations where you must play a far more complex game of Chess and Go which is why Trump ends up in almost every single case outsmarted by his enemies who progress step by step, methodically with a long term strategy, understanding that he is the noise and the deep state is the real deal.   

   The price of gas and especially diesel are glaring examples. If they do not come down before the Mid-term elections, Trump is toast. But how do you achieve this without loosing more important pawns on the international stage, is what seems to be the impossible equation which must be solved in the coming few weeks.        

   This is why the risk is so high. Being cornered, what will Trump do? As we discussed yesterday, he may seriously be contemplating the nuclear option. Will the "system" be strong enough to oppose him successfully? It seems to be the case right now but with the pressure rising, how long can it last? Already some dissenting voice are being heard in the background: "What's the point of having nuclear weapons if we can't use them when we need them?" Let's hope this remains a minority opinion but who knows?    

US Diesel Craters, EU Prices Skyrocket As Politico Reports White House Preparing Plan For 90-Day Export Ban

Summary: 

• New Politico Report Suggests White House Preparing For Diesel Export Ban
• "Definitely Doesn't Work": U.S. Energy Sec Rejects Diesel Export Ban, Risks Creating Bigger Supply-Squeeze Later

Politico Reports White House Prepares Plan For 90-Day Diesel Exports Ban

Diesel is certainly top of mind in the White House as a global refining crisis has sent prices at the pump for the industrial fuel to record-high levels, so high that Apollo's chief economist, Torsten Slok, warned earlier that it could spark a core inflation shock.

Policy maneuvering by the White House is limited, and what has been floated by Trump and some top Republicans is a diesel export ban, while top desks on Wall Street have warned that it's a terrible idea and could exacerbate prices around the world.

Earlier, U.S. Energy Secretary Chris Wright was at odds with Trump's call for a diesel export ban; Wright said, "The blunt tool of banning diesel exports definitely doesn't work."

Around lunchtime in New York, a new Politico report said the White House was preparing a potential 90-day ban on diesel exports ahead of November's midterm elections.

The report stated that the proposal remains under discussion, with its legal framework unresolved. Politico cited five people familiar with the talks.

"What has overpowered cooler heads [in the White House] is the absolutely, sky-is-falling, we-have-to-do-something concern about prices at the pump" faction, said this person, who was granted anonymity to discuss conversations with White House officials. "That camp has been swept aside by the political camp, which says, 'dammit, something has to happen.'"

AAA Diesel v. Gas at pump

A White House official commented on the report, calling it "another fake news story from Politico."

The immediate price action in the fuel markets was:

• US DIESEL FUTURES SINK MORE THAN 7% TO INTRADAY LOW
• EUROPEAN DIESEL FUTURES SURGE OVER 7% TO SESSION HIGH

Here's what happened:

Last week, Barclays refining and midstream analyst Theresa Chen warned clients that a proposed U.S. diesel export ban would be "detrimental to the US refining complex and unlikely to provide the intended price relief."

Chen outlined one major problem: keeping diesel inside the country does not guarantee it can reach gas pumps.

On Tuesday, Goldman Sachs energy analyst Nikhil Bhandari told clients the global refining system will be stretched through 2027, with diesel and gas prices expected to remain elevated.

The latest EIA data (2025) shows that Mexico is the largest buyer of U.S. diesel, followed by Chile, Brazil, the Netherlands, and the UK.

• Mexico: ~220,000 b/d (17% of total distillate exports). Still #1 but down ~18% from 2024. Mexico imports large volumes of U.S. refined products (gasoline and diesel) while sending heavier crude north.
• Chile: Second-largest destination; volumes rose ~15–16k b/d from 2024.
• Brazil: ~103,000 b/d (third). This is well below earlier peaks near 200k b/d; Brazil has taken more discounted Russian barrels since 2022 sanctions redirected Russian diesel away from Europe.
• Netherlands: ~98,000 b/d (major European trading hub/re-export point).
• United Kingdom: ~89,000 b/d (record annual average).

A case of resource nationalism? Or is the Politico report "another fake news story," as a White House source cited in the report suggests?

"Definitely Doesn't Work": U.S. Energy Sec Rejects Diesel Export Ban, Risks Creating Bigger Supply-Squeeze Later

President Trump will not be pleased...

U.S. Energy Secretary Chris Wright has publicly opposed calls for a ban on U.S. diesel exports, arguing on Wednesday that the measure would backfire by increasing gasoline and jet fuel prices.

"The blunt ​tool of banning diesel exports definitely doesn't ‌work," ⁠Wright said at an event in New York, as reported by Reuters.

Wright said restricting exports would leave refiners with excess diesel inventories, forcing them to cut refinery output.

Lower refinery runs, he warned, would tighten supplies of other fuels, ultimately driving up costs for consumers and businesses.

His comments put him at odds with President Trump, who signaled support for the idea on Tuesday as diesel prices surge to record highs in the U.S. and Europe (and Treasury Secretary Bessent has been assigned to see "if it's feasible."

Trump's comments already sent European pries for the fuel surging.

With flows from the region's top supplier at risk, Bloomberg reports that European diesel's premium to Brent crude jumped to more than $95 a barrel on Wednesday, a record in Bloomberg data going back to 2011.

Known as crack spread, the indicator has been keenly watched by central bankers as they seek to tame inflation. The equivalent measure in the U.S., meanwhile, weakened.

Trump's threat comes as Europe is already grappling with the loss of diesel shipments from the Middle East, and Russian export curbs have tightened the global fuel market further. The US has become Europe's main overseas supplier, with American exports of the workhorse fuel surging to a weekly record near 2 million barrels a day last month.

A key U.S. oil industry group cautioned against the move, saying it could lower American fuel production and damage the global economy.

Of the 8 million barrels of diesel traded globally by sea each day, the U.S. supplies about 1.5 million of them - about 20%. An export ban would remove the single largest source of global diesel from the market, and the consequences could be catastrophic.

"Restricting exports is not a solution to high prices," the American Petroleum Institute says.

"Removing US diesel from the market could instead result in reduced refinery runs, global economic damage and even higher US prices."

Indeed, as Bloomberg macro strategist, Michael Ball, write this morning,while The White House may be able to engineer a brief drop in U.S. diesel prices by limiting exports, it risks creating a bigger supply problem down the road.

With distillate stocks at seasonally record lows...

...the appeal is obvious with U.S. diesel above $6.50 a gallon...

But a broad curb could strand as much as 1.5 million barrels a day, roughly 29% of U.S. diesel output.

If enacted, Ball writes, the effects would be uneven across the U.S.

A surplus would build on the Gulf Coast, while pipeline, shipping and fuel-specification constraints limit how easily those barrels can reach tighter East and West Coast markets.

Bloomberg Intelligence estimates Gulf Coast storage could only absorb about three weeks of net diesel exports before constraints bite.

The global impact would be worse.

Kpler argues there is no real replacement for U.S. export volumes, leaving Latin America and Northwest Europe particularly exposed and increasing competition for Indian barrels.

China could compound the squeeze as domestic inventories fall and the risk of renewed export curbs rises.

The response from refiners would create a negative feedback loop.

If trapped barrels crush margins, refiners are incentivized to cut runs and undertake maintenance.

S&P Global Energy estimates crude runs might need to fall by nearly 2 million barrels a day - more than 10% of the current production level - to clear the surplus.

That is the asymmetry: lower U.S. diesel prices first, tighter global product markets follow, and potentially less U.S. fuel supply later.

The more aggressive the restriction, the greater the risk that today's price relief becomes tomorrow's supply problem.

 

Trump’s Exit Strategy Disappearing in Ukraine & the Middle East with Col Lawrence Wilkerson (Video - 56mn)

   How dangerous is Trump with his unbridled rhetoric? All hat and no horse as they  say in Texas or are we staring down the barrel of a nuclear cannon?    

   The strategy against Iran, if we can call it a "strategy" has spectacularly failed. Not only in the Middle East but in the US too thanks to the transfer mechanism of high oil prices. The immediate consequence is that Trump is heading strait into defeat for the mid-term elections. He may be irremediably delusional but eventually someone in the Republican party will tell him that the chances of winning are getting slimmer by the day or more practically distance himself from the President.

   The smart move would be to claim victory and go home. This is not a great option but the least bad at this stage. A worse option would be to double down. Even in a perfect world, the last few months have proved that bombing alone cannot achieve anything on which a "victory" label can be attached. The price of oil would skyrocket, the elections would be a disaster with the lost of both chambers and the President impeached.    

   But then there is the Hail Mary option of launching a nuclear strike on Pickaxe Mountain under the pretext that no other mean can achieve the objective, opening the Pandora Box. We know that Trump has thought about it and the army is rightly reluctant or so we are told.   

   Col Lawrence Wilkerson believes Iran already has a few nuclear devices. Nobody knows for sure but they certainly have the technology as well as nuclear material. How long would it take after a nuclear strike for Iran to actually build a bomb? Weeks? 

   The fact that such a possibility can now be entertained and discussed seriously is what should scare everybody. At the very least, the market would crash spectacularly and international trade would falter almost immediately. The willingness to use the bomb on a made up pretext with no existential risk for the US would raise international tensions to an extremely dangerous threshold. Can China and Russia live with a country ready to bomb them on short notice? The second "cold" war could get very hot very fast!   

Trump’s Exit Strategy Disappearing in Ukraine & the Middle East /Col Lawrence Wilkerson

 

Oil and the Houthis?

   The price of oil is skyrocketing and obviously the Houthis are responsible, or this is what it looks like at first sight.  

   Forget the fact that Ukraine has been bombing oil refineries in Russia for months because this is clearly against the will of President Trump who just a few days ago once again asked Ukraine "not to!"

   Forget the other fact that the closure of the Strait of Hormuz has been on and off for months too as this was an unintended consequence of a war gone wrong. Not only that but since the war went sideways, the US military has kept bombing Iranian oil facilities and tankers insuring that the oil shortfall would indeed materialize eventually. 

   And then finally the Houthis. They did bomb refineries in Saudi Arabia, especially around Yambu, there is no doubt about it.

   But what about the Saudi pipeline crossing the country and avoiding Hormuz? When it was bombed, we were told this too was the Houthis although they didn't confirm and strangely the drones came from the direction of Iraq. Trump told us it was Iran which was immediately denied with the country actually sending a mystery plane to Saudia the day after. The Shia faction in Iraq likewise denied they launched the drones. 

   So who is left who has access to secret bases in Iraq and who would have an interest in throwing oil on the fire, although here practically it is rather fire on oil? Who is capable of launching a very precise strike on a very specific target? 

   If your answer is Israel, you may be heading in the right direction. 

   Let's look at it objectively from their point of view: Trump was manipulated into the Iran war believing it would be a quick win. He is now having second thoughts. Saudi Arabia refused the last ditch push to sign the Abraham accords and deserves to be punished. Finally, Trump needs to be convinced for his own political interest that the price of oil will not come down without a major push in the Middle East. Isn't all this worth a "small" missile crossing the fog of war to reach the right political target in the middle of the desert? Who would notice anyway? Apparently no one indeed!      

   The official version below is just Houthis:  

 ⚔️ Why the Houthis are almost impossible to stop — and why Saudi Arabia is running out of options

For a decade, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, the US, Britain, and Israel have pounded Yemen with airstrikes — and the Houthis have only grown stronger. Now, with the group holding Yemen's entire Red Sea coast and striking Saudi oil infrastructure, there is little left to try that hasn't already failed.

🔴 The terrain is the weapon: The Houthis operate across a large, mountainous territory where they disperse fighters and military infrastructure — while threatening major oil facilities and key trade routes just across the border. Air power can't hold ground. And the Houthis don't need to hold it — they just need to threaten it.

🔴 They make their own weapons: The Houthis now field ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, anti-ship missiles, naval drones, and UAVs — capable of reaching every Gulf state and Israel. Iran may support the movement with training. But the Houthis manufacture most of their weaponry domestically — and may be using AI to build better missiles.

🔴 The numbers are damning

🪖 30,000 fighters in 2015 — when Saudi Arabia intervened
📈 Up to 350,000 fighters by 2024 — a more than tenfold increase

A decade of bombing produced a larger, better-armed, more experienced enemy.

🔴 Air power alone doesn't win wars: Any lasting defeat would require ground troops. But the anti-Houthi ground forces are deeply divided — Saudi-backed government loyalists and UAE-backed southern separatists fought each other as recently as January. In recent weeks, they've fallen back from one position after another.

🔴 The interceptor problem: Saudi Arabia has US-supplied aircraft and advanced missile defenses — but its high-end interceptor stocks are under pressure. With Patriot reserves drained by the Iran war and the US unable to spare any, it's unclear how long Riyadh can keep warding off attacks from the Houthis and Iran-backed militias in Iraq — which already shut down a crucial east-west pipeline.

🔴 Diplomacy is a dead end: The Houthis demand Saudi Arabia lift its blockade — which would be an admission of defeat and pave the way for even more support from the Axis of Resistance.

The Houthis cannot be bombed into submission. They cannot be starved into surrender. They cannot be defeated by proxy forces that fight each other. And they cannot be negotiated with from a position of weakness.

The Saudi Arabia and the US are learning this the hard way.

UAP are on the horizon... again!

  It all sounds like a joke but it's not, just in time to distract from Epstein and Iran dumpster fires: Trump reportedly plans big ‘aliens’ reveal.
 
 Trump is reportedly “sitting on a finished speech confirming humanity isn’t alone” in the universe, and the US government is gradually setting the stage for disclosure day, Wired reports.

From hints by his officials that the administration is treating the issue with the utmost seriousness, to fan service to UFO enthusiasts via a trickle of videos and docs on mysterious flying objects (five batches and counting), to congressional hearings and priming of the public through media, celebrities and Hollywood (Spielberg’s new Disclosure Day movie), something ‘big’ may be on the horizon.

In August, GOP megadonor and UFO enthusiast Robert Bigelow said he met with Trump and personally saw an excerpt from his aliens speech, reading: “A non-human, intelligent presence has been on Earth for a very long time, using spacecraft and with performances completely beyond our capabilities and our human physics.”

Trump has reportedly also told members of his inner circle there are aliens living in the Earth’s oceans.

That’s all well and good, but why now? What could possibly be going on in the world that requires an urgent distraction? The Middle East and Eastern Europe on fire? Check. Energy prices skyrocketing? Check. US debt on the brink of a potentially irreversible calamity? Check. Global elites implicated in a monstrous child abuse scandal? Big check. Quick: release the little green men!

In 1958, Soviet-Russian sci-fi author Ivan Efremov speculated on humanity’s first contact with an alien lifeform, concluding that this could take place only between civilizations that had resolved all the economic and social contradictions on their home planets to reach for the stars.

Look around – does our world look anything like it’s anywhere close? Why would aliens want to hang out with an orange man-child threatening to wipe out whole civilizations, anyway?

 This said, it is indeed in time of crisis that "things" tend to happen. So let's be optimistic. Do not count on alien bodies at Area 51, but better pictures and military witness accounts are not impossible.