Showing posts with label Energy War. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Energy War. Show all posts

Sunday, September 20, 2026

Judgment Day for the Middle of the Barrel | Larry Johnson

Karl Miller's latest private assessment, dated September 16 and titled "Judgment Day Has Arrived," makes a single governing claim about diesel, jet fuel, and kerosene: physical demand is now outrunning promptly deliverable supply. Not the price of the barrel—the delivery of it. In Miller's framing the market has crossed from a pricing problem, which money solves, to a deliverability problem, which money alone does not. The next phase, he argues, forces buyers to compete not just for fuel but for delivery capacity and for the cash to fund both at once.

 » US pumps are going dark. They started a war over oil and now they can't fill a truck. « 

He is describing something the market has already begun to confirm… US retail diesel crossed $6.00 a gallon on September 11, the first time on record, ten days after setting its prior all-time high. The ULSD crack spread
—the margin between diesel and crude—hit an intraday record above $108 a barrel on September 3, a level never before sustained, which tells you the scarcity is in the product, not the barrel. Distillate inventories fell to roughly 103 million barrels in late August, the lowest for that point in the calendar since 1951, and the EIA expects them to stay below 100 million through much of 2027. Miller wrote his brief into a market that is already validating its premise.
 
The Governing Condition
The spine of the assessment is deliberately simple. Take a recurring shortfall between what a market consumes and what can actually be delivered to it. Inventory and diverted cargoes can bridge that gap for a while. They cannot sustain it indefinitely. Once usable stocks are drawn down, the adjustment arrives as some combination of higher replacement cost, tighter allocation, and reduced activity—and it lands first on whichever buyer, terminal, or airport cannot secure its next delivery on time. Miller's phrase for the resolution is stark: supply must recover, or consumption must fall. There is no third option once the buffers are gone.

How a Diesel Shortage Becomes an Economic Crisis. 

To size the thing, he runs a central diesel stress case
—and here it is essential to be precise about what kind of number this is, because Miller himself is. He assumes a 1.6 million-barrel-a-day export disruption met by 50 percent replacement, leaving a residual gap of 0.8 mb/d. Held constant, that residual would demand about 72 million barrels of stock draw or demand destruction over 90 days, and 144 million over 180. These are explicitly illustrative sensitivities, not a measured global deficit—he flags repeatedly that product-level deficit magnitudes remain uncertain and that the figures are scenario mechanics rather than forecasts. The value is in the method, not the decimal.

And the method maps onto the real shocks cleanly enough. The IEA has identified three disruptions compounding at once: the Hormuz conflict removing on the order of an eighth of global supply, Russian diesel-export bans after drone strikes disabled roughly a quarter of its refining capacity, and winter distillate demand arriving into depleted tanks. Russia
—historically the world’s second-largest diesel exporter—banned exports outright on July 9 to keep fuel for its military. Miller's 1.6 mb/d is an assumption; the machinery pulling barrels off the water is not.

Inventory as a Countdown, not a Cushion
The sharpest operational move in the brief is to demote the national inventory number that dominates the headlines. A country-level buffer, Miller argues, tells you almost nothing about whether a specific business keeps running. What matters is site-level endurance: usable stock—excluding tank bottoms, unqualified material, and volumes already committed to other buyers—divided by the net daily draw. A terminal with a fixed usable volume and a widening deficit is on a clock, and a replacement cargo that arrives four days after the clock runs out may as well not have sailed. The same logic scales down to a hospital’s or data center’s backup generators, where a tank that reads "full" is really a countdown measured in days against a known burn rate.

This is why his diagnosis is that the shortage will be local and uneven long before it is general. A national statistic can look adequate while individual nodes fail, because fuel that exists in the wrong place, in the wrong grade, or under someone else's contract does not cover a missed delivery. This broader point is illustrated in the photos at the top of this article.

Credit Decides Who Gets the Cargo
Miller’s second key insight is financial. In a market where prices are high and delivery cycles are long, the buyer has to fund both simultaneously—pay up for the barrel and carry it for the extra days it spends in transit. He illustrates with a delivered-cost stack that runs, in his tight-to-acute range, from roughly $200 to nearly $300 a barrel once location premium, ocean freight, terminal handling, inland delivery, and financing are added on top of the benchmark—the equivalent of something like $4.80 to $6.90 a gallon before tax. Again, these are illustrative route economics, not quotes. But note that the market has already printed the middle of that range: $6 diesel is here, and California retail has been reported above $9.

Food and energy are two of the most immediate and visible inflation channels

The consequence he draws is the one worth keeping: credit becomes a supply constraint. A buyer can be perfectly solvent on annual earnings and still lack the working capital to prepay a larger cargo, meet collateral calls, and carry slower-moving inventory all at the same time. When that happens, the fuel goes to whoever can fund it, not whoever needs it most. Financially weaker importers can lose access before larger economies feel the squeeze at all.

Aviation and the Airport Problem
Jet A and Jet A-1 get their own treatment, because aviation has the least room to improvise. Qualified fuel has to be at the airport, in the hydrant, before the aircraft departs; a refinery barrel somewhere else is worthless to a delayed flight. Airlines are left to choose among buying costlier replacement fuel, tankering extra where it is operationally feasible, reworking schedules, or cancelling. Miller’s illustrative math — a $20-a-barrel step adding $60 million over 30 days for a 100,000-barrel-a-day buyer — is less important than the structural point: hedging can change what a carrier pays, but it cannot conjure a delivery that the airport cannot physically make. He is also careful to note that jet fuel and kerosene are the same cut of the barrel, so the aviation volume must not be double-counted as additional kerosene demand — a discipline that a lot of looser analysis ignores.

Where It Bites First, and How It Ends
The geography of risk, in his ranking, runs through the weakest local links: import-dependent Northwest Europe and inland markets facing winter demand on top of freight fuel; the US Gulf Coast, whose refining and export weight makes any local outage a global event; import-dependent emerging markets where foreign exchange and cargo finance can fail before physical stocks do; and airports with concentrated, hard-to-substitute supply. The common thread is that substitution is hardest exactly where the stakes are highest.

On duration, Miller offers no normalization date, and insists none can be honestly given. His planning horizon is 90 to 180 days with contingency held into 2027. The recovery point he stresses is one that calendar-watchers routinely miss: ending the shortage requires not a daily balance but a sustained surplus, because supply first has to stop the draw and then rebuild the usable buffer while still covering consumption. At a half-million-barrel-a-day surplus, rebuilding 30 million barrels of cover takes two months — and that clock only starts after supply overtakes demand. A market that merely returns to breakeven stays fragile.

The Verdict
Strip the brief to its load-bearing claim and it does not merely hold up against the tape—the tape is racing to catch up to it. This is, by every current metric, a middle-distillate physical-supply crisis: record crack spreads above $108 confirm a refining and yield failure rather than a crude shortage, inventories sit at their lowest level in seven decades heading into heating season, refineries are already running at 98 percent and still cannot make enough of the middle of the barrel, and traders and the IEA alike are warning the tightness runs clear through winter and into 2027. Miller called the nature of the danger correctly and early: this is about deliverability—the next cargo, the qualified grade, the funded position—not headline price, and that lens is sharper than nearly all of the commentary still treating a structural break as a passing spike. He wrote "Judgment Day Has Arrived" into a market that promptly broke $6 diesel for the first time in history, printed the highest distillate margins ever recorded, and watched a quarter of Russia's refining capacity and an eighth of global supply go offline at once. The banner is not hyperbole. It is a description.

One distinction has to be kept, and it is the one that makes the brief stronger rather than weaker: the quantified apparatus is a scenario toolkit, not a set of measured deficits. The 1.6 mb/d disruption, the cost ladders, the barrel counts are illustrative sensitivities—Miller says so himself—and their power is in the method, not the decimal: the residual-gap arithmetic, the site-level endurance countdown, the credit gate. Insist on that and the framework is unassailable, because you are handing a reader a way to run the numbers rather than a number to argue with. And the one development that could ease the price—softening freight and contracting manufacturing—is no refutation at all. It is the second of the two exits Miller named. Either supply recovers or consumption falls, and consumption falling is not the crisis being escaped. It is the crisis arriving.
 
Reference:
Larry C. Johnson (b. 1954) is a former CIA analyst, State Department counter-terrorism advisor, and 24-year Special Operations trainer who has served as managing partner of BERG Associates LLC since 1998, specializing in financial analysis and anti-money laundering investigations. Sidelined from mainstream media for offering candid assessments against foreign interventionism, he now provides independent geopolitical analysis to businesses, non-partisan commentary outlets, and international platforms, including the UN Security Council and channels like Judging Freedom, The Duran, and Redacted.

Karl W. Miller (b. 1965) is an energy veteran with over 35 years of experience in commodities trading, risk management, and market strategy, having held senior executive roles at firms like JPMorgan Chase, Enron, El Paso Energy, and PG&E. Typically operating behind the scenes, he strictly reserves his proprietary insights for private clients, making his recent public warnings regarding unprecedented middle-distillate shortages a rare, high-stakes departure from standard practice. 
See also:

Tuesday, July 21, 2026

Al-Aqsa Triangle: Hormuz, Bab al-Mandab, and Suez Chokepoints

Following the partial disruption of shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, the Bab al-Mandab Strait is emerging as a second potential global energy chokepoint. The Ansar Allah movement (Houthis) in Yemen has announced an initial naval blockade targeting Saudi vessels, citing the long-standing Saudi air and sea blockade of Yemen. 

Al-Aqsa Triangle: Yemen–Iran strategy to disrupt global trade
by closing the Middle East's three key maritime chokepoints.
Bab al-Mandab links the Suez–Red Sea corridor to the Indian Ocean and, alongside Hormuz, forms a dual chokepoint system vulnerable to escalation via Iran-aligned actors. A simultaneous disruption would block roughly a quarter of global energy flows and a large share of Asia–Europe trade, with Hormuz carrying 27% of seaborne oil and 20% of LNG, and the Bab al-Mandab/Suez corridor each handling 11% of global trade and 8% of LNG. 
The Bab al-Mandab is not yet fully closed. Commercial traffic continues, but the corridor is operating under elevated threat conditions. Attacks on selected vessels have increased, producing selective disruption rather than a comprehensive blockade. In response, some shipping lines are rerouting around the Cape of Good Hope, while others continue transit under heightened security measures, including naval presence and route adjustments. In response to constraints at Hormuz, Saudi Arabia has shifted a significant share of exports to the Red Sea port of Yanbu, where approximately 4 million barrels of crude are loaded daily. Roughly 3 million barrels per day are destined for Asian markets and transit the Bab al-Mandab.
American worthless signature: The repeated breaches of the agreement by the Great Satan regarding the MOU signed by the Presidents of Iran and the US have once again laid bare a fundamental truth: the signature of the US President is utterly worthless and devoid of credibility. It further reaffirms that coercion and brutality are inseparable components of the US creed and doctrine. Imam Sayyid Mojtaba Khamenei, July 17, 2026.
Rerouting via the Cape of Good Hope adds 6,000 km (3,700 miles) and 10–14 days transit time, in some cases longer. This materially increases fuel, charter, and operating costs. War-risk insurance premiums for Red Sea transit have also surged, adding several hundred thousand USD per voyage. Escalation risk centers on a full blockade scenario. If Ansar Allah forces interdict all international shipping, not just Saudi vessels, the impact would be significantly greater.
 
Strategic Trade Significance: Hormuz vs. Bab al-Mandab
Hormuz concentrates unmatched upstream energy dependency, funneling roughly 20% of global oil (17–20 million bpd), over 20% of LNG, and a decisive share of global helium vital for high-tech and medical supply chains. Because Saudi and UAE pipeline bypasses cover only a fraction of normal volumes, any disruption creates an immediate physical supply deficit—driving rapid oil and gas repricing with direct spillovers into petrochemicals, fertilizers, and industrial inputs.

Bab al-Mandab anchors throughput rather than production, serving as the southern gateway to Suez. It carries 12–15% of global trade, including major Asia–Europe container traffic, dry bulk, and mid-single-digit million bpd of oil. Unlike Hormuz, these flows can be rerouted around the Cape of Good Hope, though doing so adds roughly 6,000 km, 10–14 days, and sharp increases in fuel costs, vessel utilization constraints, freight rates, and war-risk premiums.

Consequently, their economic transmission mechanisms diverge. Hormuz is a quantity shock that removes physical supply and forces immediate energy repricing. Bab al-Mandab is a friction shock that preserves supply but degrades delivery efficiency, triggering broader, slower-moving inflation across manufactured goods, energy derivatives, and food. Fertilizer markets sit at the intersection, relying on Hormuz for Gulf ammonia and urea to exit, and on Bab al-Mandab for efficient delivery to European and African markets.

Simultaneous impairment escalates systemic risk nonlinearly. Upstream supply contraction combines with downstream logistical breakdown, eliminating volume availability and transit efficiency at once. This dual constraint compresses global inventories, amplifies price volatility, and propagates cost increases across industrial inputs and consumer goods with minimal buffering capacity.
The Bab al-Mandab handles thousands of commercial transits annually and links the Indian Ocean to the Red Sea and Suez Canal—one of the world's critical trade corridors. Full closure would force large-scale rerouting around Africa, extending delivery times, increasing freight rates and insurance costs, and placing renewed stress on global supply chains.  
 
July 21, 2026: Iran Destroys F-15 Hanger Base, 100 US Troops Lost as Trump Panics.

Cost transmission effects would likely be broad-based. Higher transport costs would feed into fuel prices (gasoline, diesel, heating oil), airfares, food, consumer goods, and imported products. Firms would absorb higher logistics and energy costs, with partial pass-through to end consumers.

July 21, 2026: Bab al-Mandab Strait Becomes New Shipping Flashpoint as Houthis Signal Blockade.
 
The EU is engaged via Operation Aspides with a mandate limited to protecting civilian shipping. The US and the UK are conducting separate military strikes against targets in Yemen. Historical precedent indicates limited containment success: prior multinational naval deployments with dozens of warships failed to durably constrain Ansar Allah capabilities. Current Ansar Allah systems include even more advanced drones and missiles than in 2025.

 
A concurrent escalation in Bab al-Mandab alongside sustained tension in the Strait of Hormuz would affect the region's two principal energy and trade corridors simultaneously, posing a high-risk scenario for global economic disruption and upward pressure on energy, transport, and consumer prices.

Friday, May 1, 2026

The Sequence of the EU/UK’s Seven-Wave Crisis | Kirill Dmitriev

Kirill Dmitriev, CEO of Russia’s sovereign wealth fund (RDIF) and a presidential envoy, has outlined a forecast of cascading crises in the EU and UK beginning in May 2026. 
 
Dmitriev is signaling that, once the EU and UK accept the reality on the

battlefield—that Russia has prevailed—a new phase of cooperation
 based on trust and mutual respect could become possible.

According to this scenario, an initial phase of jet fuel shortages would be followed by broader disruptions in oil, gas, and fuel supplies, along with reduced availability of fertilizers and resulting crop and food shortages by the summer. This would ultimately lead to accelerated deindustrialization, a breakdown in currency stability, fiscal conditions, and debt markets, and culminate in a social and political crisis in the fourth quarter of 2026. 
 
 » Madness and a Kamikaze approach to an existential crisis. « 
Germany's Self-Destruct Pact: Merz Pushes Europe to the Brink.
  
» Awakening and Reset in 2027. «
 
Putin's top negotiator, Dmitriev, casually wake-surfing off Miami on December 27, 2025.
 
Dmitriev's narrative concludes by linking these potential disruptions to a broader "awakening" and systemic "reset in 2027." Is this part of a really smart Good Cop-Bad-Cop diplomacy psy-op, is this all actually heading toward total EU/UK defeat, followed by catharsis, mutual respect, and a prosperous future, or is it merely wishful thinking from a fifth column pro-West liberal?
Powerus, a US company, has secured a contract to supply interceptor drones to the US Air Force, though the quantity and total value remain undisclosed. Notably, Powerus is backed by Eric Trump and Donald Trump Jr.—sons of the sitting US president. The deal raises conflict-of-interest concerns, as it points to potential financial gain from military contracts tied to ongoing US operations in Ukraine and West Asia. War pigs gotta war pig? 
» What we’re looking at is a global struggle—the Great Game Renewed. It’s developing across multiple theaters, starting in the Arctic, where Russia effectively controls the most strategically important coastline for emerging trade routes. The middle layer is the Baltic states pushing toward escalation with Russia. Then comes Ukraine at the center. Below that are Georgia, Azerbaijan, Armenia, the Caucasus, and Central Asia. At the bottom sits Iran. «

Although Western media prematurely declared Mali defeated, that collapse did not occur:  Malian Armed Forces and Russian Africa Corps airstrikes decimated al-Qaeda-linked logistics and neutralized leadership in Kidal, stabilizing northern front lines through April 2026.
See also:

Monday, March 30, 2026

JPMorgan Maps and Times the Global Oil Supply Shockwave | Really?

JPMorgan commodity strategist Natasha Kaneva released a report on March 26, 2026 (no complete official  public version available) that outlines how the closure of the Strait of Hormuz has triggered a progressive, region-by-region oil supply shock. As of March 30, 2026, this analysis remains the authoritative reference: 
 
East Asia and Asia-Pacific deplete first, Africa, Europe, and the Americas follow.

Gradual Inventory Depletion Crisis (according to JPM)
The global oil supply system has shifted from an abrupt flow disruption to a gradual inventory depletion crisis, with timing emerging as the central driver of economic impact. The report’s core projections—an initial gross supply shock of approximately 16 million barrels (MMbbl) per day tapering to around 10 MMbbl per day by April—continue to align with current developments.
 
Estimated Dependency on Persian Gulf / West Asia Oil Imports (2025–2026). 

Nature and Progression of the Supply Shock (according to JPM)
Vessel traffic through the Strait of Hormuz has stayed more than 95% below normal levels since the last regular commercial tanker departed on February 28, 2026. The shockwave propagates from east to west, governed by maritime distances from the Persian Gulf. Asia, which normally receives over 80% of the crude oil transiting the Strait, faces the earliest and most severe effects. Pre-closure shipments have been exhausted, resulting in rapid inventory depletion across the region. India experienced the initial impact, followed by Northeast Asian importers including China, Japan, and South Korea.
 
The Strait of Hormuz is not closed: On March 29, Dimitri Lascaris boarded an Iranian civilian vessel and toured the Strait of Hormuz for approximately one hour. There, he observed and recorded the presence of nearly 100 oil tankers and cargo ships. By all indications, commercial vessels continue to transit the Strait in significant numbers, but they now do so on terms dictated by the Islamic Republic. 
Southeast-Asia, Asia-Pacific, and Africa (according to JPM)
Southeast Asian oil demand is projected to contract by roughly 300,000 barrels per day in April. Losses could exceed 2 MMbbl per day in May and approach 3 MMbbl per day by June if strategic reserve releases remain limited to individual national efforts. Africa is expected to encounter visible impacts in early April, with potential oil demand losses reaching 250,000 barrels per day should inventories continue to decline.
 
The Philippines declared a national energy emergency. 
 
Asia-Pacific Emergency Measures and Rationing (according to JPM)
Several Asia-Pacific governments have implemented structured conservation and demand-management policies. The Philippines (population 117 million) declared a national energy emergency on March 24, 2026 through Executive Order No. 110 signed by President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. The Department of Energy has directed power-sector participants to adopt immediate fuel-conservation protocols, prudent load management, and generation-schedule adjustments. A four-day work week has been introduced for many government offices, accompanied by encouragement of remote work and reduced non-essential travel. Fuel imports from alternative sources, including Russian crude under temporary US sanctions waivers, have been authorized. 
 
Australia (27M) holds approximately 36 days of petrol stocks, 34 days of diesel, and 32 days of jet-fuel inventories (figures from early March, now further drawn down). Nationwide rationing has not been enacted, though the government has temporarily eased fuel-quality standards for 60 days to redirect roughly 100 million liters of export-grade fuel into the domestic market each month. Service stations in some areas have introduced voluntary purchase caps, and national contingency planning for standardized stock reporting and potential future rationing is advancing. 

Australia is one of the world’s largest energy exporters—the third-largest exporter of LNG and the leading seaborne supplier of thermal and metallurgical coal. Rumor has it their degenerate eugenicist government now aims for a COVID-style "energy lockdown"—never letting a fine crisis go to waste. Like them, the European Commission is fanatically in line with the UN self-extinction Agenda 2030, always eager and ready to strangle its people beyond imagination.
South Korea (51M) has imposed a five-month ban on naphtha exports, effective March 27, 2026, to prioritize domestic petrochemical and refining needs. China has restricted overseas shipments of refined fuels to preserve domestic inventories. Approximately 5% of ethylene production capacity in Japan, South Korea, and China has shut down due to feedstock shortages.

Impacts on Europe and North America (according to JPM)
Europe (450M) is projected to face pressure by mid-April, primarily through elevated costs and intensified competition for non-Gulf supplies rather than outright physical shortages. Natural-gas prices on the continent have risen to 55–58 euros per megawatt-hour, while airlines confront severe pressure from surging jet-fuel expenses. Slovenia has become the first European Union member to impose explicit fuel rationing, limiting private motorists to 50 liters per day.
 
A dull face, yet impeccably groomed—vain, deeply self-important, and convinced he has control over everyone and 
everything: European Commissioner Dan Jørgensen, the quintessential apparatchik, an unshakable pillar of the regime.
Dozens of loaded oil tankers have been idling off the coasts of Belgium and the Netherlands for weeks. Port workers and tanker crews report that the EU Commission is preventing them from entering ports to unload their cargo. An EU oil shortage is being created to justify and bring about an "energy lockdown." These are the very same ilk who implemented the COVID‑19 plandemic script, who seize farmers' lands for "climate protection," who feed the meat grinder in Ukraine, who keep their mouths shut and bow down after the US blows up Europe's main pipelines with Russia, who wail over Greenland, and who cheer the US takeover of Venezuela — the very same Zionist perverts who have financed and participated in U$raHell's genocides and wars ever since — including the ongoing one against Iran.
North America appears latest in the timeline, with most Gulf shipments expected to cease arriving around April 15, 2026. The US (342M) is unlikely to experience direct physical shortages owing to its robust domestic production. The impact will manifest mainly through rising fuel prices and refined-product market dislocations. West Texas Intermediate crude has increased more than 40% in March and continues to trade approximately 10 dollars below Brent.
 
Mitigation Efforts and Global Responses (according to JPM)
Gulf producers are expanding alternative export routes to mitigate the disruption. Saudi Arabia has increased flows through its East-West pipeline to the Red Sea port of Yanbu from 0.8 to 3.3 MMbbl per day, with potential to reach 4.7 MMbbl per day by April. The United Arab Emirates has raised throughput on its Fujairah bypass pipeline from 1.1 to 1.6 MMbbl per day. These workarounds replace only a fraction of the lost capacity.
 
A Russian tanker with 650,000 barrels of Urals crude arrived in Cuba (11M) today despite
the US genocidal blockade of the island, providing limited relief for roughly 9–10 days.
 
The International Energy Agency (IEA) has coordinated the release of 400 MMbbl from strategic reserves across its 32 member nations—the largest such operation in the agency’s history—with the US contributing nearly half from its Strategic Petroleum Reserve. IEA Executive Director Fatih Birol has described the current disruption as the greatest threat to global energy security on record.
 
Geopolitical and Market Outlook
In Asia the energy supply crisis has strained aviation, agriculture, construction, and heavy transport sectors, prompting emergency measures. Geopolitically, the disruption has enhanced the attractiveness of Russian overland export corridors and reinforced the strategic position of US LNG supplies in both Asian and European markets.
Russian Chechen combat units officially declare they will deploy to Iran to fight alongside Iranian forces if the US launches a ground invasion. They are framing it as a sacred Jihad against US power. The conflict is expanding globally.
As of March 30, 2026, Iran maintains a selective policy on the Strait of Hormuz, which remains effectively closed to vessels linked to U$raHell and their active allies. Tehran has explicitly permitted safe passage for ships from countries it considers "friendly" or non-hostile — China, Russia, India, Pakistan, Iraq, and Bangladesh. Malaysia and Thailand have benefited on a case-by-case basis, sometimes involving prior diplomatic contact or a transit fee.
 
► Japan has declined to commit naval or military forces to US–Israeli operations, and is offered safe passage through the Strait.
► India has successfully negotiated transit for Indian-flagged LPG carriers and other vessels, occasionally escorted by the Indian Navy in the Gulf of Oman. 
► Pakistan has secured passage for specific tankers, and Iran has agreed to allow up to 20 additional Pakistani-flagged ships, with two vessels crossing daily.
► China has engaged in talks for safe passage of crude and LNG vessels, though some Chinese-linked ships have turned back due to practical risks despite assurances. 
► Bangladesh has been included in Iran’s list of friendly countries.
► Taiwan is a nation hostile to Iran, and has mitigated the crisis with oil reserves and secured LNG supplies through April. Short-term actions include accelerated procurement of alternative LNG from the US and Australia. Contingency plans involve emergency spot-market purchases and mutual assistance discussions with partners such as Japan and South Korea. 
► South Korea and Vietnam have conducted diplomatic outreach to Iran for safe passage, receiving positive indications from Tehran, though broad arrangements remain limited or pending. 
► The Philippines, not hostile to Iran, but one of the most vulnerable nations, has focused primarily on declaring a national energy emergency, implementing conservation measures, and sourcing Russian crude under temporary US sanctions waivers rather than pursuing high-profile direct diplomacy with Iran, although domestic calls for such talks have emerged. 
 
Continuously Updated Supply Chain Disruptions Map.
 
On March 26, 2026, Epstein's boyfriend announced a 10-day extension of the pause on strikes against Iranian energy infrastructure, extending the deadline to April 6. He cited an Iranian request for negotiations, noting that Iran had permitted "10 tankers to pass through the Strait as a goodwill gesture;" Iranian officials, however, denied that any talks were under way.
 
Iran continues to mock Epstein’s boyfriend...
 
...White House bimbo Karoline Leavitt insists 'negotiations'
are ongoing and Iran is lying by stating otherwise... 

...and as Iran and Asia bear the brunt of both immediate and long-term harm, the U$raHell
war machine puppeteers once again emerge as the leading and most immediate profiteers.
It’s about time to sink some aircraft carriers... 
   
Brent crude, which closed at $108.01 per barrel on March 27, now trades in the $111–115 range as of March 30, 2026. Macquarie Group has assigned a 40% probability to the conflict extending through June, a scenario that could drive Brent above $200 per barrel and US retail gasoline prices to approximately $7 per gallon. Wood Mackenzie has warned that a sustained Brent average of $125 per barrel throughout 2026 would be sufficient to trigger a global recession. 
 
Iran’s "reverse indicator" trading advice continues to play out in real-time:
At 4:12 PM ET on Sunday, March 29, Iran's Speaker of the Parliament said US pre-market news is
a "reverse indicator";  if they "dump" the market, then "go long," and if they "pump it, short it."
  

See
also: