Iran Was The Warning. China Could Be The Catastrophe

Iran Was The Warning. China Could Be The Catastrophe

PNW STAFF

For the past several weeks, the world's attention has been fixed on Iran.

Military strikes. Missile exchanges. A fragile ceasefire. Constant speculation about whether the Strait of Hormuz might stay open or closed. Markets have reacted nervously because everyone understands a simple truth: modern civilization still runs on energy.

For a brief moment, the world caught a glimpse of how fragile our interconnected economy really is.

But if we think Iran represents the greatest economic threat facing the West, we are looking in the wrong direction.

The conflict with Iran may ultimately be remembered as a dress rehearsal.

A confrontation with China would be an entirely different story.

If Iran can shake the global economy by threatening the flow of oil, China possesses something arguably even more powerful--the ability to choke off the materials, products, and manufacturing that modern life depends upon every single day.

Oil keeps the engine running.

China manufactures the engine.

And that should concern every American.

Iran Showed Us Our Weakness

The recent Middle East crisis reminded us how dependent the global economy remains upon uninterrupted energy supplies. Roughly one-fifth of the world's oil passes through the Strait of Hormuz. Even the possibility of disruption caused oil prices to spike and governments to begin contingency planning. The recent ceasefire has reduced immediate fears, but analysts continue describing the situation as fragile, with global markets remaining sensitive to any renewed escalation.

That dependence should have been a wake-up call.

Instead, many are breathing a sigh of relief and returning to business as usual.

That would be a dangerous mistake.

Because America's dependence on China extends far beyond gasoline prices.

It reaches into nearly every aspect of daily life.

The Hidden Supply Chain We Rarely Think About

Walk through your home.

Look at your television.

Your smartphone.

Your laptop.

Kitchen appliances.

Medical devices.

Power tools.

Electric vehicles.

 Children's toys.

Odds are, China was involved somewhere in their production.

The United States has spent decades outsourcing manufacturing to lower-cost countries, with China becoming the world's factory.

What once appeared to be smart economics has quietly become a profound national security vulnerability.

If tensions over Taiwan or another geopolitical flashpoint ever erupted into sustained conflict, Americans could quickly discover that many of the products they assume will always be available suddenly are not

More....

“Gore’s apocalyptic climate predictions have aged poorly,”

Even Einstein Admitted He Was Wrong… We Apparently Can’t Expect As Much From Al Gore

Gary Abernathy

When it comes to scientific theories, even some of history’s most respected and renowned people and institutions have graciously admitted when they were wrong when confronted with irrefutable evidence.

It took 359 years, but eventually the Catholic Church conceded in 1992 that the church was wrong and Galileo Galilei was right – the Earth revolves around the sun.

Throughout the 18th century, chemists widely believed that a substance called phlogiston was released when materials were burned. But when Antoine Lavoisier demonstrated that many metals often became heavier when burned – the opposite of the phlogiston theory – his contemporaries humbly admitted their error and praised his experiments.

And when scientists, including Edwin Hubble in 1929, demonstrated that the universe is expanding rather than remaining static, as Albert Einstein had theorized, even the revered Einstein readily admitted he was wrong, calling it “my biggest blunder.”

Twenty years ago, in 2006, former Vice President Al Gore released his film, “An Inconvenient Truth,” which included ominous and even hysterical warnings about a coming climate apocalypse if mankind did not dramatically change its ways. In the two decades since its release, the film’s most dire warnings have proven to be inaccurate.

Examining Gore’s film on the anniversary of its release, several writers have pointed out its most glaring errors. For instance, writing for Newsweek, Bjorn Lomborg, president of the Copenhagen Consensus, notes several calamitous predictions in the film that time has proven wrong: deaths from climate-related disasters have actually plummeted; hurricane frequency and intensity have declined; globally, areas burned by wildfires have decreased over the past quarter century; and the supposedly endangered polar bear population – a memorable visual from the Gore film – has more than doubled from the 1960s to today.

“Gore’s apocalyptic climate predictions have aged poorly,” Lomborg concludes.

Over the years, countless critics have pointed out the errors both in Gore’s film and in his ensuing personal crusade as, like Don Quixote, he continues tilting at windmills (while ironically advocating for their proliferation).

Faced with the overwhelming preponderance of evidence refuting his original hypotheses, one might assume that Gore – like the Catholic Church, the chemists of the 18 th century, and even the great Albert Einstein – would humbly concede his mistakes.

One would be wrong.

In a recent interview marking the anniversary of “An Inconvenient Truth,” Gore found an uncritical partner in the form of ABC News meteorologist Ginger Zee, who couldn’t have presented the former vice president in a more heartwarming light if she had somehow commissioned the late Norman Rockwell to paint his portrait.

Despite the obvious numerous mistakes and shortcomings in his film, Gore insisted that he and the scientists he relied upon have been right all along – while simultaneously demonstrating that his penchant for hyperbole remains unabated.

“The scientists were dead right on all the important elements of it,” Gore insisted, adding that “it really is insane that we are continuing to use the sky as an open sewer and we’re trapping so much heat every day it’s equal to the amount that would be released by 800,000 Hiroshima-class atomic bombs exploding every day on the earth.”

Huh? Would you repeat that please?

It’s “equal to the amount that would be released by 800,000 Hiroshima-class atomic bombs exploding every day on the earth.”

Thanks.

It is little wonder that Gore finds himself so easily mocked.Gore’s atomic bomb analogy originated from climate alarmists who have been using it for years, adding a few hundred thousand to the estimate of bombs every so often.

But for anyone remotely familiar with history, the claim conjures images of people dropping like flies every day because of global warming, since the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 instantly killed more than 100,000 people. Such over-the-top depictions are why so many find it so hard to take seriously the kind of climate change threats that come from the radical left.

Unfortunately for the average citizen – both in the U.S. and worldwide – the far-left (formerly mainstream) media’s enthusiasm for propping up Gore and the climate craze have real-world consequences. Despite mountains of conflicting evidence, the media provides cover for leftwing government types who, when in power, throw billions of dollars toward scientifically unsupported efforts to replace our most affordable and reliable energy resources with defective “alternatives” made feasible only because of taxpayer subsidies.

We apparently can’t expect Al Gore to show the class of Albert Einstein and admit he was wrong. But it’s entirely realistic to expect our government to protect us from ever again implementing energy policies based on his mistakes. Doing so has already cost us far too much.

IF YOU THOUGHT FLOCK WAS BAD...

IF YOU THOUGHT FLOCK WAS BAD

Wall Street Apes

New mass surveillance technology is being deployed in America, it will track Americans via Bluetooth connection from their devices

If “you thought Flock was bad, something even more terrifying is being installed all over America. It’s made by a defense contractor called Leonardo, and here’s what it does”

So the biggest problem with these LPRs, license plate readers like Flock, is that it needs to use a license plate to identify you

This company has found a way around that

They’ve made a device that can be installed next to any existing license plate reader that once it’s installed, that next time they pull your license plate, it will pull all the unique Bluetooth identifiers from all the smart devices in your car.

But it doesn’t stop there, it gets worse

Once they have those devices, they link them to you via your license plate, and now they never need to scan your license plate again.

These new sensors can be installed anywhere, and they can even see who’s traveling with you

It’s made by Leonardo DRS, they are a defense and technology company that works with U.S. military, law enforcement and intelligence agencies

These devices are reportedly being deployed or tested in various US cities alongside existing LPR networks

It’s called SignalTrace and it can be easily added onto any existing camera of their or Flock

It’s described as “An advanced intelligence system that upgrades standard license plate readers to track people by their smart devices they carry, rather than just by their vehicles

This is insane and should be federally banned. This is the surveillance state

More...

Disarming Hezbollah Crucial to Middle East Peace and Lebanon’s Sovereignty

Disarming Hezbollah Crucial to Middle East Peace and Lebanon’s Sovereignty

Antonio Graceffo

On June 26, 2026, the United States, Israel, and Lebanon signed the Trilateral Framework Agreement in Washington, the first directly negotiated Israel-Lebanon peace framework since 1983, driven by a shared determination to end Iranian interference in both countries. For decades, both countries had been dragged into war by Iran, acting through its terrorist proxy Hezbollah, which undermined Lebanon’s sovereignty, launched attacks on Israel, and exported chaos across the Middle East.

The agreement was reached after multiple rounds of direct negotiations, with both governments declaring their intent to conclusively end the conflict, address its underlying causes, and formally conclude any state of war between them. It establishes a structured process to restore Lebanon’s sovereignty, disarm Hezbollah and dismantle its terrorist infrastructure, and enable Israel to withdraw from Lebanese territory once that threat is removed.

It also creates a trilateral Military Coordination Group for Lebanon, facilitated by the United States. Iran, which the U.S. Treasury confirmed transferred over $1 billion to Hezbollah since January 2025 alone through the IRGC-Quds Force, is directly targeted by the agreement, which commits Lebanon and the U.S. to preventing funds from flowing to any entity, organization, or individual affiliated with non-state armed groups.

Iran provides Hezbollah with an estimated $700 million to $1 billion annually, funding its paramilitary forces, weapons procurement, and social services networks that entrench its political power in Lebanon. Hezbollah’s founder, in a 2016 speech, publicly confirmed that all of the organization’s funding, its salaries, weapons, and missiles, comes directly from Iran.

Under the deal, Israeli forces will begin partially withdrawing from southern Lebanon, pulling out of two pilot zones within the buffer zone, to be replaced by the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF). Israeli Ambassador Yechiel Leiter stated at the signing that Israel will maintain its buffer zone until the LAF demonstrates it can dismantle Hezbollah and assume security responsibility, adding: “Iran is out, Hezbollah is out, and the road to peace between Israel and Lebanon is in.”

Hezbollah leader Naim Qassem called the agreement a “humiliation,” vowing to keep fighting until Israel withdraws from Lebanon and rejecting any linkage between Israel’s pullout and Hezbollah’s disarmament as a “very dangerous suggestion.” Lawmaker Hassan Fadlallah warned that enforcing the framework would require civil war, pledging that Hezbollah would confront any measure taken by Lebanese authorities and would not surrender its weapons.

That defiance reflects a deeper structural problem. Senior Lebanese officials have consistently prioritized deconfliction with Hezbollah over disarmament, and LAF commanders have reportedly tipped off Hezbollah in advance of patrols and inspections — a practice that has frustrated Israeli and U.S. officials.

Disarmament efforts began in earnest after President Joseph Aoun and Prime Minister Nawaf Salam took office in January 2025. In August, the government directed the LAF to draft a plan for a state monopoly over all weapons in Lebanon. The cabinet formally adopted the resulting five-phase plan, known as Homeland Shield, on September 5, 2025, starting south of the Litani River and proceeding north in stages.

More....

US and Iran agree to halt Hormuz attacks, will reportedly hold talks about strait in Qatar on Tuesday

US and Iran agree to halt Hormuz attacks, will reportedly hold talks about strait in Qatar on Tuesday

TOI STAFF

Iran and the United States have agreed to halt attacks, a US official said Sunday, and will reportedly meet again on Tuesday in Doha to discuss the Strait of Hormuz.

The Axios news site, citing US officials and a source with knowledge of the details, reported that Tuesday’s talks were originally planned to take place in Switzerland, but the flareup caused them to be moved to Qatar’s capital and the topic was changed to the Hormuz standoff, as disputes and gaps remain despite the memorandum of understanding reached earlier this month.

“We decided to stop all the kinetic activity,” one of the US officials was quoted as saying.

Confirming that the sides agreed to stop attacks and resume negotiations, a US official said”technical talks are slated to continue on all areas of the MOU,” not just Hormuz.

“Both sides will stand down for now and vessels can move freely,” the official said.

The remarks came shortly after an Iranian official said Tehran did not take part in technical talks slated for Sunday due to recent attacks on the country and unfulfilled conditions of the MOU, which was meant to halt the fighting and reopen the strait while negotiations proceeded on issues such as Iran’s nuclear program.

“For example, one of the reasons is checking if we have access to the unfrozen funds, if there is no access then this condition has not been fulfilled,” Mehdi Fazaeili, a member of the Office of Preservation and Publication of the Works of Iran’s Supreme Leader, told state television.

Despite a ceasefire that took effect in April and the recently signed MOU, sporadic violence has continued in the Gulf region, the spark of which is often Iranian attacks on ships passing through the Strait of Hormuz.

Tehran was angered by Oman’s announcement last week of an alternative route through the strait that hugged the Omani shoreline, which Muscat said was in conjunction with the International Maritime Organization.

Iran has continued to insist on controlling passage through the vital strait, through which a fifth of the world’s oil and liquefied natural gas travel in normal times. It did not enjoy such control before the war.

The strait comprises Omani and Iranian territorial waters, but under customary international law the two cannot generally block passage or charge tolls.

Nevertheless, Iran prevented most ships from using the narrow waterway during the war, granting it enormous economic leverage which it appears reluctant to give up.

The attacks by Iran to enforce its control have triggered repeated tit-for-tats with Washington, the latest of which came early Sunday, when US Central Command said it had attacked 10 Iranian military targets over “continued Iranian aggression against commercial shipping” following another strike on a tanker in the region.

Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps said it retaliated with strikes against US bases in Kuwait and Bahrain, which both of those countries condemned. The IRGC claimed the US strikes violated the ceasefire and “will result in the complete halt of all diplomatic processes,” state-run Press TV said. The IRGC navy command said American bases in the region “will experience hell in the coming days.”

Iran presently insists ships transiting the strait pass through a corridor near its own shores, though this week dozens of vessels have travelled along the opposite side of the waterway, hugging the Omani coast.

“Any attempt to adopt new or separate arrangements compared to what is underway by the Islamic Republic of Iran, will only lead to more complicated situations and delays in the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, and will increase the tensions,” Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said.

The published text of the memorandum says Iran will define the future administration of the strait in dialogue with Oman and the other Gulf States, but “in line” with international law.