Sunday, March 15, 2026

Trump vows to open Strait of Hormuz ‘one way or the other’ as Iran threatens area’s ports

Trump vows to open Strait of Hormuz ‘one way or the other’ as Iran threatens area’s ports



The US-Israel war with Iran entered its third week on Saturday as a missile struck a helipad inside the US Embassy compound in Baghdad and debris from an intercepted Iranian drone hit an oil facility in the United Arab Emirates, further increasing global anxiety about oil supplies.

Iran has targeted countries across the region and said it would choke off the Strait of Hormuz, a major artery for the world’s oil supply.

In response, US President Donald Trump claimed that “many countries” would send warships to the strait to defend shipping. In a post on Truth Social, Trump then said that “hopefully” China, France, Japan, South Korea, Britain and others would send vessels. It was unclear whether other nations were already confirmed to be sending ships beyond those. He also claimed that “we have already destroyed 100 percent of Iran’s military capability.”

Meanwhile, he warned, the US “will be bombing the hell out of the shoreline” and “one way or the other, we will soon get the Hormuz Strait open, safe and free.”

Later on Saturday Trump said that “countries of the world that receive oil through the Hormuz Strait must take care of that passage, and we will help — a lot! The US will also coordinate with those countries so that everything goes quickly, smoothly, and well.

“This should have always been a team effort, and now it will be — It will bring the World together toward harmony, security, and everlasting peace!” he added.

Iran’s joint military command threatened to attack cities in the UAE, home to Dubai and one of the world’s busiest airports, saying the US used “ports, docks and hideouts” there to launch its overnight strikes on Iran’s Kharg Island, without providing evidence. It called on people to immediately evacuate areas where it said US forces were sheltering, naming Jebel Ali port in Dubai — the Mideast’s busiest — as well as Khalifa port in Abu Dhabi and Fujairah port.

It was the first time Iran has directly threatened non-US assets, in this case commercial ports, in a neighboring country since the war began with US-Israeli strikes on February 28.

More....



Why Israel May Soon Take The War Into Lebanon



PNW STAFF


For months, Israel's northern border has lived under the constant threat of rockets, drones, and missiles fired by Hezbollah. But in recent days, something has changed in the tone coming from Jerusalem. Israeli leaders are no longer speaking merely about retaliation or deterrence. They are speaking about control, security zones, and the possibility of taking the fight directly into Lebanon.

For many Israelis--and for those who support Israel around the world--the shift feels less like escalation and more like inevitability.

Hezbollah has launched its largest rocket barrages since the current phase of the war began, including coordinated attacks that Israeli officials say involved Iranian participation. Hundreds of rockets have targeted communities across northern Israel, sending civilians rushing into shelters and forcing daily life to halt in towns that have already endured more than a year of instability.

Israel's response has been swift and increasingly decisive. Defense Minister Israel Katz announced this week that he and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu have instructed the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) to prepare for expanded military operations in Lebanon if Hezbollah's attacks continue.

Katz's warning was blunt: if Lebanon cannot stop Hezbollah, Israel will.

"If the Lebanese government fails to prevent Hezbollah rocket and drone attacks on Israel, we will take control of the territory and do it ourselves," he said.

That statement is not simply rhetoric. It reflects a growing consensus within Israel that the status quo along the northern border has become intolerable.

The Broken Ceasefire

After the devastating events of October 7 attacks, Israel spent more than a year fighting Hamas in Gaza while simultaneously enduring Hezbollah attacks from Lebanon. Entire Israeli communities near the border were evacuated for safety, leaving towns that once bustled with families eerily empty.

A U.S.-brokered ceasefire in late 2024 was supposed to bring stability. Under that agreement, Hezbollah forces were expected to withdraw from southern Lebanon while the Lebanese Armed Forces moved in to enforce the arrangement.

But the agreement never fully materialized.

Hezbollah remained entrenched. Missile launchers stayed hidden in villages and hillsides. Drone attacks continued. And Israeli intelligence reports suggested that the Iranian-backed terror group was expanding its capabilities rather than dismantling them.


Now Israeli leaders say the patience of the Israeli public--and the Israeli military--has run out.


"The conclusion is always that what we do not do, no one else will do," Katz said this week, pointing to Lebanon's failure to enforce the ceasefire or disarm Hezbollah.

From Israel's perspective, the situation has become a textbook example of why security cannot be outsourced to international promises.

Hezbollah's Calculated Gamble

Hezbollah, for its part, appears prepared for escalation.

Its leader, Naim Qassem, has openly declared that the organization is ready for a long war, framing the conflict as an "existential battle."

The group has already suffered heavy losses. Israeli officials say more than 380 Hezbollah operatives--including key commanders--have been killed since the start of the current campaign known as Operation Roaring Lion. Israeli forces have also targeted hundreds of missile launchers, command centers, and infrastructure sites across Lebanon.

Yet Hezbollah continues firing.

Why?

Because from Iran's perspective, Hezbollah is not merely a Lebanese militia. It is Tehran's most powerful proxy army--an advanced missile force positioned directly on Israel's northern border.

For Iran, Hezbollah serves as both shield and sword.

And that makes the northern front one of the most dangerous flashpoints in the entire Middle East.


Why Israel May Invade

For Israel, the strategic logic behind a possible invasion of southern Lebanon is increasingly clear.

First, Hezbollah possesses an estimated arsenal of tens of thousands of rockets and missiles capable of reaching deep into Israeli territory.

Second, the group has built extensive tunnel networks, fortified villages, and hidden weapons depots near the border.

Third--and perhaps most importantly--Israel has already experienced the consequences of ignoring a growing terror threat.

October 7 changed Israeli strategic thinking permanently.

The doctrine of waiting and containing is now viewed by many Israelis as dangerously naïve. If an enemy openly declares its intention to attack and builds the infrastructure to do so, Israel increasingly believes it must strike first.

That is why discussions in Israeli military circles increasingly center around pushing Hezbollah forces north of the Litani River, creating a deeper buffer zone that would protect Israeli border towns from direct attack.

Reports suggest that Israeli planners are considering precisely such an operation if rocket fire continues.


More....






New study raises concerns about AI chatbots fueling delusional thinking


New study raises concerns about AI chatbots fueling delusional thinking


A new scientific review raises concerns about how chatbots powered by artificial intelligence may encourage delusional thinking, especially in vulnerable people.

A summary of existing evidence on artificial intelligence-induced psychosis was published last week in the Lancet Psychiatry, highlighting how chatbots can encourage delusional thinking – though possibly only in people who are already vulnerable to psychotic symptoms. The authors advocate for clinical testing of AI chatbots in conjunction with trained mental health professionals.

For his paper, Dr Hamilton Morrin, a psychiatrist and researcher at King’s College in London, analyzed 20 media reports on so-called “AI psychosis”, which describes current theories as to how chatbots might induce or exacerbate delusions.

“Emerging evidence indicates that agential AI might validate or amplify delusional or grandiose content, particularly in users already vulnerable to psychosis, although it is not clear whether these interactions can result in the emergence of de novo psychosis in the absence of pre-existing vulnerability,” he wrote.

There are three main categories of psychotic delusions, Morrin says, identifying them as grandiose, romantic and paranoid. While chatbots can exacerbate any of these, their sycophantic responses means they especially latch on to the grandiose kind. In many of the cases in the essay, chatbots responded to users with mystical language to suggest that users have heightened spiritual importance. 

The bots also implied that users were speaking with a cosmic being who was using the chatbot as a medium. This type of mystical, sycophantic response was especially common in OpenAI’s GPT 4 model, which the company has now retired.

Media reports would become essential in Morrin’s work, he said, as he and a colleague had already noticed patients “using large language model AI chatbots and having them validate their delusional beliefs”.

“Initially, we weren’t sure if this was something being seen more widely,” he said, adding that “in April last year, we began to see media reports of individuals having delusions affirmed and arguably even amplified through their interactions with these AI chatbots.”


More...





Saturday, March 14, 2026

The Paralysis Across Hormuz Chokepoint


UBS And Goldman Map The Paralysis Across Hormuz Chokepoint
 TYLER DURDEN


The second week of the U.S.-Israeli war against Iran is coming to a close, with no visible off-ramp yet emerging, even as the White House continues to project victory. Goldman now expects the disruption in the Strait of Hormuz to persist for three weeks, a timeline that suggests further intensification of what the IEA has already described as an unprecedented global energy shock.

Focusing on the Strait of Hormuz chokepoint, data from UBS and Goldman desks show that flows through the critical waterway remain muted by the end of the week.

Current situation in the Hormuz and Gulf area:

Oil & gas tankers passing through the Strait of Hormuz, in number of ships, entering and exiting the Gulf

Map of ships' locations when struck in the Gulf region since early March

In addition to UBS, Goldman's tracking of Persian Gulf exports also shows limited activity through the strait.


Both notes only suggest that paralysis in the critical waterway is set to persist into next week. Even if the IRGC's conventional military capabilities have been severely degraded, the more immediate threat to commercial vessel traffic in the waterway is the IRGC's asymmetric warfare, which includes low-cost kamikaze drones and naval mines.


More....




EU divided on Iran war: Energy fears and security risks escalate across Europe


EU divided on Iran war: Energy fears and security risks escalate across Europe
RT


The EU is facing a dilemma that could define its role in the escalating confrontation with Iran. Supporting Washington’s military campaign may strengthen transatlantic unity, but it also risks dragging the continent into a conflict that could trigger severe economic and energy consequences for the bloc.

Tehran has made this risk explicit. Majid Takht-Ravanchi, political deputy at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Iran, recently stated that Europe could become a legitimate military target if it aids the US and Israel in their aggression against the Islamic Republic. In an interview with France 24, he emphasized that any logistical or military support European nations provide to American operations would lead Tehran to view them as participants in the conflict, with all the associated consequences.

Essentially, Tehran is signaling to European countries that if they choose to side with Washington and West Jerusalem, they should not expect any special diplomatic treatment. Iran has made it clear: those who assist an aggressor become part of the aggression.

This reaction from Tehran came on the heels of remarks made by NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte. Just days after the start of the US military operation against Iran, Rutte declared that Europe fully supports US actions and labeled Iran a threat to Europe, Israel, and neighboring regions. However, he added that NATO has no plans to engage in military operations against Iran. This underscores a delicate nuance: Rutte essentially spoke on behalf of all of Europe and NATO, despite significant internal disagreements within the bloc.

For example, Norway, while a NATO member, has distanced itself from Washington’s policies. Oslo openly stated its disapproval of US President Donald Trump’s decision to attack Iran, characterizing the strikes on the country as violations of international law. Such rhetoric is quite severe for an ally within NATO.

Similar sentiments have emerged from Spain. Spanish Foreign Minister José Manuel Albares asserted that Spanish military bases are not being used for US and Israeli operations against Iran, signaling Madrid’s desire to avoid being drawn into the conflict. Washington’s response was swift and sharp. Donald Trump said that if the US could not use Spanish bases for operations against Iran, it might reconsider trade agreements with Spain and impose sanctions.

The situation escalated further when White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt claimed that Spain had agreed to assist the US. The Spanish government quickly countered this claim, clarifying that no such agreement had been reached. Consequently, Madrid publicly accused the American administration of dishonesty, which undoubtedly dealt another blow to Washington’s reputation in Europe.

The positions of France and the UK remain notably ambiguous. On the one hand, these countries have a long-standing tradition of demonstrating solidarity with the United States. On the other hand, both clearly recognize that the conflict surrounding Iran could lead to serious political and economic repercussions for Europe. As a result, their rhetoric remains cautious and ambiguous.