Saturday, August 1, 2026

Trump, Netanyahu consider land blockade to increase pressure on Iran


Trump, Netanyahu consider land blockade to increase pressure on Iran
Vered Weiss, World Israel News


Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and President Donald Trump discussed the possibility of imposing a land blockade on Iran as part of a broader effort to increase economic pressure on the Islamic Republic after months of military operations have not brought about the collapse of the regime, the Telegraph reported.

According to the report, the proposal was among the options raised during the leaders’ Oval Office meeting earlier this week. The discussions reportedly focused on intensifying pressure against Tehran “through kinetic and non-kinetic means.”

The proposal would require the United States and Israel to persuade Iran’s neighbors and regional partners to tighten or close border crossings, limiting the movement of imports and exports into and out of the country.

“What if you just blocked the land? Suppose Iran can’t bring anything in and cannot take anything out. Anything will happen,” a senior Israeli official told the Telegraph in describing one of the options discussed by the two governments.

Analysts have identified several obstacles to implementing such a plan, including the difficulty of securing cooperation from countries that border Iran.

The Islamic Republic shares frontiers with Iraq, Turkey, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Turkmenistan, Armenia and Azerbaijan, meaning any effort would require support from governments that include states not considered allies of either Israel or the United States.

The report said Washington could view Pakistan and Iraq, neither regarded as a close U.S. ally in the region, as potential weak links in any coordinated effort.

Countries agreeing to participate would also face significant economic costs as well as the possibility of retaliatory action by Iran.

Some experts, however, said that if a land blockade could be implemented, it could restrict the flow of supplies into Iran and further weaken the regime. They also said blocking key ports or major land crossings could limit Tehran’s ability to replenish its military capabilities.

Iran is expecting a shipment of hundreds of Chinese rocket launchers from Beijing under a new agreement intended to strengthen military ties between the two countries.

The Telegraph said a land blockade would align with Trump’s “maximum pressure” strategy, which seeks to cripple Iran’s economy and was launched with a naval blockade.


Report: US, Israel weigh land blockade to tighten pressure on Iran

The United States and Israel are considering a plan to tighten Iran’s land borders as part of a broader campaign to increase pressure on Tehran, The Daily Telegraph reported Friday.

The proposal was among several options discussed by US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu during talks at the White House on Tuesday, according to the report.

The plan would require Washington and Jerusalem to persuade Iran’s seven land neighbours to restrict border traffic, limiting imports, exports and potentially weapons shipments. Iran borders Iraq, Turkey, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Turkmenistan, Armenia and Azerbaijan.

A senior Israeli official told The Telegraph that sealing Iran’s land routes could deepen its economic isolation, although analysts said enforcing such a blockade would be extremely difficult, particularly through countries with close ties to Tehran.

The discussions come as Trump considers further steps to force Iran back into negotiations after strikes and a naval blockade failed to secure a breakthrough. Other options reportedly include maintaining the maritime campaign, resuming airstrikes or pursuing an agreement.


Hamas Disarmament Deal: Netanyahu Signals Deep Reservations


Trump Says Israel ‘Very Happy’ With Hamas Disarmament Deal, but Netanyahu Signals Deep Reservations




President Donald Trump said Friday that Israel was “very happy” with a newly announced agreement aimed at disarming Hamas, even as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu remained publicly silent and senior Israeli officials indicated that Jerusalem had not accepted the proposal in its current form.

Speaking during a Cabinet meeting at Camp David, Trump described the agreement as a major breakthrough in his administration’s effort to end the Israel-Hamas war and establish a new governing authority in the Gaza Strip.

“We do have an understanding with Israel,” Trump said when asked whether Jerusalem had agreed to honor the deal. “Israel is very happy about it. Israel helped us, and they’ve been very good.”

Trump acknowledged that implementation could face difficulties but said the agreement represented progress few believed possible. He said Hamas would surrender its weapons through a process overseen by his U.S.-backed Board of Peace.

However, Netanyahu has not publicly endorsed the agreement, and statements attributed to a senior Israeli official directly contradicted Trump’s characterization of Israel’s position. The official said Israel would not withdraw its forces from their present defensive positions until Hamas had undergone “genuine disarmament.”

The differences go beyond diplomatic language.

The 15-point roadmap reportedly calls for Hamas and other Palestinian terrorist organizations to decommission and store heavy weapons, military production facilities, weapons depots and tunnels under the supervision of the National Committee for the Administration of Gaza, a Palestinian technocratic body.

The weapons would not be transferred to Israel or another non-Palestinian party. Hamas official Ghazi Hamad also avoided using the word “disarmament,” describing the proposal instead as a “comprehensive framework.”

Hamad said Hamas would not begin placing weapons into storage until Israel stopped its military operations, increased humanitarian access and withdrew its forces to positions established under the previous Sharm el-Sheikh agreement.

“We will not take any action regarding disarmament prior to Israel’s withdrawal from the Strip,” Hamad said Thursday.

An Israeli official responded that there would be no Israel Defense Forces withdrawal from the current Yellow Line until Hamas had surrendered its weapons in a verifiable manner. The disagreement leaves both sides demanding that the other act first—the same obstacle that has repeatedly stalled earlier negotiations.

Trump announced Thursday that his Board of Peace had reached a “historic” agreement for the complete, phased disarmament of Hamas and other armed groups in Gaza. Under the proposed process, Israeli forces would gradually withdraw while an International Stabilization Force and newly organized Palestinian police secured the territory.

Yet a U.S. official acknowledged that Israel remained “very skeptical” that Hamas would actually relinquish its weapons. Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir called the draft unacceptable and urged Israel to continue targeting Hamas leaders.

he concern in Jerusalem is that Hamas could place selected heavy weapons in storage while preserving command networks, operatives, concealed arms and the ideological infrastructure needed to rebuild its military capabilities.

Israel has seen similar patterns before. Hamas has accepted temporary ceasefires and tactical pauses while consistently refusing to recognize Israel’s legitimacy or abandon what it calls “armed resistance.”

More...


More than 60,000 migrants breach Spanish border


Video


Thousands of migrants continue to storm the border of the Spanish enclave of Ceuta in North Africa, despite Spain sending thousands back to Morocco and dozens of deaths. We look at what sparked the mass migration of mainly young men, who made the dangerous crossing by swimming to the territory, hoping to attain asylum to enter mainland Europe. DW correspondent Jan-Philipp Scholz is on the ground, reporting from the beach where migrants continue to arrive. DW’s Christine Mhundwa also speaks with European Migration and Diversity Policy analyst Helena Hahn from the European Policy Center, an independent, non-profit think tank in Brussels.




The TV presenter is crying. She’s crying for everything we are about to lose
Video









The Coming Beast System: When the Algorithm Decides You Can’t Buy Bread


Phase Four: When the Algorithm Decides You Can’t Buy Bread


The sterilization of commerce began not with prohibition but with friction. You noticed it first in the parking meter that no longer accepted coins, then in the café’s “card only” sign handwritten in marker, then in your own hesitation at handling bills that suddenly seemed suspect, unsanitary, archaic. Each instance felt minor. Aggregate them across ten years and you have witnessed the largest structural transformation of property rights in modern history without a single vote cast on the matter.

I have spent the last eight months buried in central bank GitHub repositories, procurement documents for “retail central bank digital currency infrastructure,” and the annual reports of payment networks that now process more value in a day than the GDP of most nations. The picture that emerges is not speculative. It is architectural. And architecture, once poured in silicon and policy, becomes inevitable.

The Compression in Numbers

• Physical cash in circulation has declined 42% across OECD nations since 2020, with Sweden projecting complete cashlessness by 2027 and the Norwegian central bank estimating only 3% of transactions now use physical currency

• The Bank for International Settlements Innovation Hub currently operates 17 active CBDC projects including Project Aurora (cross-border surveillance), Project mBridge (multi-currency settlement between China, UAE, Thailand, and Hong Kong), and Project Tourbillon (offline payment tracking)—all with production deployment timelines between 2026-2028

• Commercial bank branch closures have eliminated 34% of physical banking access points in the United States since 2019, creating 1,214 “banking deserts” where residents must travel more than 10 miles to access cash services

• Visa and Mastercard now control 87% of global card payment volume, with interchange fees averaging 2.24% plus fixed assessment charges—extracting approximately $138 billion annually from merchants, costs passed directly to consumers through embedded inflation

• The Financial Action Task Force’s Recommendation 16 (Travel Rule) now requires virtual asset service providers to collect and share beneficiary and originator data for all transfers exceeding $1,000, with the threshold reduced to $0 in jurisdictions including Germany and Singapore for certain transaction types

• China’s digital yuan (e-CNY) has processed over $250 billion in transactions across 26 pilot cities, featuring programmable expiration dates on “red envelope” stimulus funds and integration with the Social Credit System’s behavioral scoring infrastructure

What the aggregate data obscures is the texture of elimination. When the European Central Bank published their digital euro investigation phase report in October 2023, they included a technical annex specifying “holding limits” of €3,000 per citizen and “tiered access” based on verification levels. The language was bureaucratic. The implications were feudal. In a cash-based economy, possession constitutes ownership. In the proposed architecture, access constitutes privilege—and privileges can be suspended.

The violence is administrative and therefore invisible to aggregate metrics. Consider the trajectory in India, where the 2016 demonetization eliminated 86% of circulating currency overnight with four hours’ notice. The stated goal was eliminating black money. The result was catastrophic: 1.5 million jobs lost in the informal sector within three months, 150 reported deaths from exhaustion in bank queues, and a permanent shift to digital payment rails controlled by foreign-owned platforms. The policy succeeded not in eliminating corruption but in eliminating the economic autonomy of the cash-dependent poor. This was not a bug. It was the feature.

The infrastructure of exclusion now being deployed globally learns from this pilot. The digital euro’s proposed “offline holding limits”—designed to prevent “unauthorized accumulation”—would cap the amount of CBDC that can exist outside of real-time monitoring. Exceed the cap, and funds revert to monitored status or expire. The Bank of England’s consultation paper on the digital pound explicitly discusses “programmable money” for “targeted stimulus,” meaning funds that can only be spent on government-approved categories or within specific time windows. This is not money as property. This is money as voucher, with terms and conditions subject to unilateral modification.

The biometric bridge is nearly complete. Mastercard’s Biometric Checkout Program, active in Brazil and planning 2026 expansion to Europe, allows payment through facial recognition linked directly to digital currency wallets. The pilot data shows 85% consumer approval for “convenience.” 

What the surveys don’t measure is the elimination of the final anonymity layer. In a biometric payment system, there is no “bearer.” There is only identity, behavior, and permission status. The transaction becomes inseparable from the person, and the person becomes readable as data.

The European Union’s Digital Identity Wallet framework, scheduled for full implementation by 2027, will consolidate payment credentials, tax status, health records, and “trusted attribute attestations” in a single interoperable system.

The trajectory points toward a compression event: the convergence of CBDC deployment, biometric payment mandates, and algorithmic “de-risking” creating a population bifurcation between the “verified” and the “unverified.” The verified will move through a frictionless economy of conditioned privileges—spending permissions, travel authorizations, access rights—administered in real-time. The unverified will inhabit an increasingly criminalized gray zone of cash-like substitutes: barter, cryptocurrency (where permitted), and informal credit networks subject to enhanced surveillance and punitive taxation.





The Impending Collapse of California’s Transportation Fuel Infrastructure


The Impending Collapse of California’s Transportation Fuel Infrastructure


With the loss of transportation fuel supplies from Asian refineries resulting from the Iranian War and California’s huge dependency, the 4th largest economy in the world is on the precipice of an unprecedented, self-inflicted logistical and national security catastrophe. Driven by adversarial state policies and aggressive litigation from activist groups, the state’s domestic refining capacity has already been crippled, and has led to the most expensive transportation fuels in the nation for its California residents.

California is the 4th largest economy in the world and an “ENERGY ISLAND that is separated from the other 49 States by the Sierra Mountains. There are no pipelines over those prestigious mountains.

California demands 58 million gallons of transportation fuel DAILY:

If those transportation fuels are not made in California, they have to be made in refineries located in the Gulf or East Coast, or in foreign countries with gross polluting refineries and shipped across the Pacific Ocean via polluting tankers. However, the Ports of Los Angeles, Long Beach, and Oakland are NOT designed to import those humongous volumes of transportation fuels.

Without immediate federal intervention via the Defense Production Act, California, its neighboring states, and the U.S. military face the potential for a total supply chain collapse.


  1. Policy-Driven Destruction: The Timeline of a Dying Industry

A series of aggressive, adversarial state legislative and regulatory actions have systematically dismantled California’s refining sector, stripping away 35% of the state’s crude oil refining capacity and slashing gasoline and jet fuel production by 40% and 30% respectively:

  • Assembly Bill X2-1 (ABX2-1): Signed in October 2024, this law mandated minimum fuel storage levels, driving up operating costs to unsustainable levels.
  • The Phillips 66 Wilmington refinery closure (October 17, 2025): Forced by the state’s regulatory climate, Phillips 66 shut down its Wilmington refinery, taking 139,000 barrels per day offline.
  • The Valero Benicia refinery Exit (January 31, 2026): Burdened by a record $82 million fine and the new tank storage mandate, Valero took a staggering $1.1 billion loss to permanently shutter its Benicia refinery (135,000 barrels per day).
  • The Marathon Martinez refinery & Phillips 66 Rodeo refinery Conversions (2023): Marathon and Phillips 66 converted facilities to renewable diesel, taking another 260,000 barrels per day of crude processing capacity offline.


California is already operating on borrowed time, kept afloat only by emergency inflows of transportation fuels from the rest of the nation:


More...