The Friday Edition

Our Friday News Analysis | What the World Reads Now!

April 16, 2026

Helping to Heal a Broken Humanity (Part 80)

The Hague, 17 April 2026 | If you know of a decisive story, tell the world! We're still searching.

Mr. President! The Red Cross? Wow! Mucho cojones. Seriously, it’s beyond absurd. It’s hilarious.

My friends and I gaped at the image over coffee and burst out laughing, to the point of tears. We then resorted to drinking one of life’s elixirs, which kept us going all night long, lifted by freely flowing alcohol.

Mr. Trump, thank you for trying to drain the swamp. Seriously ... if you want to look like God, don’t even try. God’s face is already engraved in yours. You don’t need to look like a clown in that ‘Red Cross outfit.’ You and every person, dead and alive, are created in His image.

So, just walk His way, talk His truth, and live His life.

Comprende?

Editorial |

By Abraham A. van Kempen
17 April 2026

Abraham A. van Kempen
Senior Editor

Building the Bridge Foundation, The Hague
A Way to Get to Know One Another and the Other

Remember! Diplomacy is catalytic—transformative —while military action is cataclysmic—destructive and catastrophic.

When faced with the options to be good, bad, or ugly, let’s build bridges, not burn them. After all, mutual deterrence reigns.

TRUMP ‘PERMANENTLY OPENING’ STRAIT OF HORMUZ ‘FOR CHINA’

The US president claims Beijing has agreed “not to send weapons to Iran”

US President Donald Trump © Getty Images / Alex Wong

HomeWorld News
15 April 2026

US President Donald Trump announced he is "permanently opening" the Strait of Hormuz, for China "and the world," claiming Beijing has agreed "not to send weapons to Iran.”

Trump announced the blockade of a key waterway Sunday after failed Pakistani-led talks to secure peace with Iran. By Tuesday, US Central Command said American warships had stopped all Iranian trade through the strait.

On Wednesday, Trump posted on Truth Social that "China is very happy that I am permanently opening the Strait of Hormuz." He also said, "I am doing it for them, also – and the World.”

Trump said Beijing ‘agreed not to send weapons to Iran,’ and Xi Jinping ‘will give me a big, fat hug when I arrive there in a few weeks.”

“China is very happy that I am permanently opening the Strait of Hormuz. I am doing it for them, also - And the World. This situation will never happen again. They have agreed not to send weapons to Iran…” - President Donald J. Trump pic.twitter.com/g2LbmMJS5a
— The White House (@WhiteHouse) April 15, 2026

Trump is scheduled for a state visit to China on May 14, with Xi expected to visit Washington later for a reciprocal visit.

Read more
US says Iranian trade through Strait of Hormuz fully halted

China hasn't responded to the US leader’s recent message about reopening the strait but has denied offering military support to Iran.

Beijing accused Washington of "dangerous and irresponsible" conduct over its blockade of Iranian vessels.

Iran shut the Strait of Hormuz to “enemy ships” following the US-Israeli bombing campaign on February 28. Since then, Tehran has called for acknowledgment of its “sovereignty” over the waterway and the authority to levy tolls.

US-IRAN WAR: US AIMS TO CHOKE TRAFFIC TO IRAN'S PORTS; IRAN THREATENS RETALIATION TO NAVAL BLOCKADE

US Naval Blockade Aims to Cut Off China’s Access to Oil

Vice President JD Vance accused Iran of “economic terrorism” by essentially closing the Strait of Hormuz.
He defended the US blockade of Iranian ports, which started over 12 hours ago, with President Donald Trump threatening Iranian ships, as an equal response.
One ship did cross the Strait after Trump’s order, according to reports.

Watch the Video Here (12 minutes, 47 seconds)

WION India
World is One News
14 April 2026

U.S. Blockade of Iranian Ports and Strait of Hormuz Tensions

The United States imposes a naval blockade on maritime traffic entering and exiting Iranian ports, framed by U.S. officials as a measure to stop Iran from “blackmailing” global trade.

Iran condemns the move as piracy and an unlawful act under international law, while China criticizes the blockade due to its reliance on Iranian oil. An interview segment discusses possible U.S. motives, escalation risks, and Iran’s capacity to sustain retaliation and pressure U.S. allies in the Gulf.

Blockade announced and rationale: President Donald Trump says a U.S. military blockade of Iran’s ports is intended to prevent Iran from blackmailing/extorting the world; when asked about the “endgame,” he answers, “Maybe everything,” implying multiple objectives, including negotiations and reopening trade.
Scope and enforcement: U.S. Central Command confirms a blockade of maritime traffic entering and exiting Iranian ports/coastal areas. The report says enforcement is to be “impartial” across flags, while not impeding vessels transiting the Strait of Hormuz to/from non-Iranian ports.
Military posture: The U.S. is reportedly deploying at least 15 warships across the Gulf of Oman and the Arabian Sea east of the strait.
U.S. messaging on Hormuz: Vice President JD Vance accuses Iran of “economic terrorism” and says the Strait of Hormuz must remain fully open, rejecting what he characterizes as Iranian attempts to “move the goalpost” in negotiations.
Iranian response: Iran brands the blockade “piracy,” warns that if its harbors are threatened, then no port in the Persian Gulf/Arabian Sea will be safe, and threatens proportional responses to actions against Iranian vessels and interests.
UN and legal framing: Iran’s UN ambassador calls the blockade a grave violation of sovereignty and international law of the sea. The International Maritime Organization emphasizes de-escalation and states that no country has a legal right to block shipping in straits used for international transit.
China’s reaction: China—described as the largest buyer of Iranian oil—criticizes the blockade and cautions the U.S. against interfering with China’s bilateral energy/trade ties with Iran, with an assertion that the Strait of Hormuz remains open for China.
Allied support unclear: Trump claims allies want to help, but the report says no country, including NATO allies, has pledged support so far.
Interview analysis (Dr. Glenn Dies): He suggests the blockade pressures Iran and indirectly targets China by disrupting a key energy supplier; he argues escalation risks expand the conflict by impacting Chinese trade and could provoke Iranian strikes on Gulf state ports.
Assessment of endurance and escalation: The interviewee argues Iran may have advantages in resilience (decentralized/cheap drone production, ability to absorb damage) and can impose high costs on U.S. allies; he cautions outcomes are uncertain but suggests Iran may be able to “hold out” if it can maintain weapons production and continued retaliation.

PROF. JEFFREY SACHS | TRUMP'S NAVAL BLOCKADE OF THE STRAIT OF HORMUZ

Prof. Glenn Diesen and Prof. Jeffrey Sachs analyze the breakdown of U.S.-Iran negotiations, highlighting that the following actions seem more chaotic than strategically planned.

Prof. Sachs suggests this chaos results from conflicting goals between Israel and the U.S., as well as decision-making that is highly personalized around Donald Trump rather than typical institutional procedures.
He argues Israel is openly opposed to a ceasefire and negotiations, while U.S. policy oscillates between maximal demands, threats, and improvised diplomacy.
Broadening the lens, they compare this pattern to recent U.S. misjudgments toward China and Russia, describing a politicized and increasingly incompetent Washington that overestimates U.S. leverage, underestimates adversaries’ capacity to respond, and fails to adapt to a multipolar world—while Congress, in Prof. Sachs’s view, abdicates its constitutional role.

Watch the Video Here (30 minutes, 49 seconds)

Host Prof. Glenn Diesen
Substack.com
14 April 2026

Transcript Summary: Prof. Glenn Diesen with Professor Jeffrey Sachs

Prof. Glenn Diesen: Welcome back. Today is April 14, and we have the great pleasure of being joined by Professor Jeffrey Sachs. So thank you, as always, for coming back on the program.

Professor Jeffrey Sachs: I’m delighted to be with you, Glenn. Thanks a lot.

Prof. Glenn Diesen: The U.S.-Iran talks collapsed mainly because the U.S. imposed capitulating conditions, leading to a naval blockade of the Strait of Hormuz before the ceasefire ends. How do you interpret these events?

Professor Jeffrey Sachs: Daily events seem incoherent. Trump appeared ready to destroy a civilization, but a ceasefire was announced. Israel then bombed Beirut. The straits stayed closed, and the U.S. vice president negotiated without a clear structure.

Professor Jeffrey Sachs notes a contradiction: Iran’s 10-point plan, which was supposed to guide negotiations, was never mentioned during Vance's visit. Typically, when talks fail, the U.S. responds with a blockade, but here it opposes the blockade and imposes one. Trump then claims Iran is seeking more negotiations.

Professor Jeffrey Sachs: Honestly, this process isn't straightforward and lacks transparency and clarity. I don’t believe there’s any deep cleverness behind it. Instead, it seems rooted in the chaos inherent to this story.

Professor Jeffrey Sachs: Part of the confusion comes from two partners on one side: Israel and the U.S. Israel isn't seeking a ceasefire; it aims for Iran's destruction, and this is openly stated.

Professor Jeffrey Sachs: During a supposed ceasefire, Israel escalates in Lebanon, sparking debate over Lebanon's inclusion. Pakistan says yes, Iran agrees, Israel denies, and the U.S. wavers.

Professor Jeffrey Sachs: This isn't about depth; Israel, one side in this conflict, refuses both a ceasefire and negotiations.

Professor Jeffrey Sachs: The true nature of the negotiations remains unclear. The US first set demands, which Iran rejected. Iran countered with a 10-point proposition, which Trump accepted as a starting point but later ignored. So, what's really happening?

Professor Jeffrey Sachs: The term 'the United States' is misleading, as it refers to a single individual who believes threats, bluster, and force—like demanding, huffing, puffing, posting, or bombing—can achieve his goals. His main assumption is that intimidation and force will produce the desired outcome.

Professor Jeffrey Sachs: Iranians often display politeness in public, which the U.S. might see as weakness. When they say, “We would like to trust the United States,” Trump might think, “These people are idiots. I want to kill them. What are they talking about?”

Professor Jeffrey Sachs: This situation may reflect a cultural lack of contact. Trump, either deluded or for other reasons, thinks he can force his way through, believing he has “all the cards." The Iranians also think they hold many cards, but I don’t believe they’re just giving in to U.S. demands; if so, they would have conceded long ago.

Professor Jeffrey Sachs: Recent weeks show the US can't militarily defeat Iran. Military force has limits. Why does Trump keep using bluster, demands, bombing, threats, and killings—strategies that failed before? Why would they work now? Clearly, Trump thinks they might. I believe he genuinely believes he can bluff or bomb his way to his goals.

Professor Jeffrey Sachs: Based on secondhand reports, Trump called Vance multiple times during negotiations. Although unusual and sad, this suggests such behavior is personal, not institutional. It seems like a delusional, ineffective solo effort, not an official government move.

Professor Jeffrey Sachs: My view, Glenn, is that Donald Trump is central to the situation. I might be wrong or oversimplify, missing a deeper truth. I see an ineffective, deluded old man who blusters, yells, and uses violence to impose his will—along with an accomplice seeking destruction. That’s why I find this view strange. This is just my interpretation.

Prof. Glenn Diesen: Statecraft is confusing. You mentioned “delusion” and questioned if there's an irrational basis. Justifications for war—like nuclear threats, Iran's “irrational mullahs” who can’t be deterred, or the alleged assassination attempt on Trump linked to Iran—weren't convincing.

Prof. Glenn Diesen: The reaction to the situation was a regime-change war. They overestimated Iran's government stability, believing regime change could be achieved through an air campaign. Trump claimed no one predicted Iran would target bases, block the Strait of Hormuz, or engage in a prolonged conflict. However, my podcast discussed these potential responses beforehand, as Iran sees this as an existential threat and seeks to deter it.

Prof. Glenn Diesen: It questions the logic of everything. How are you evaluating this? None of the reasoning, reactions, or assumptions seems sensible.

Professor Jeffrey Sachs: We're outside the room again, and the process seems deinstitutionalized and irrational. Governments typically organize information through files, bureaucracy, options, deliberation, and memos, culminating in group decisions.

Professor Jeffrey Sachs: In the U.S., the process involves multiple branches: the legislature deliberates, the president meets with senators and congressmen, senior officials brief Congress, and staff are involved, making it comprehensive.

Professor Jeffrey Sachs: We sometimes possess detailed records of these processes. The Cuban Missile Crisis is the most famous example, during which President Kennedy’s executive committee held multiple recorded meetings and studied for years. This committee included leaders from the Pentagon, the CIA, the Justice Department, and the State Department. After meetings, officials returned to their agencies to carry out further procedures, such as documentation, verbal discussions, and diplomatic back channels.

Professor Jeffrey Sachs: The current process obscures details, focusing reports on Trump and close advisors, mostly yes-men, listening to Trump. It doesn't seem rational.

Professor Jeffrey Sachs: We’ve heard credible accounts, especially from the New York Times, I often criticize but must admit—without denial from those involved. They describe Netanyahu and the Mossad chief proposing a war to Donald Trump in a small group, where others like Vance, the CIA director, and the Joint Chiefs chair were skeptical. Some found it farcical, but Trump said, “Yeah, this sounds good.”

Professor Jeffrey Sachs: Mossad suggested gathering all Iranian leaders and proceeding with killing them, with Trump making the final decision. Vance reportedly disagreed but supported, while others expressed doubts. It seems more like Trump’s personal spectacle, as such serious decisions are usually not made this way.

Professor Jeffrey Sachs: We can include Trump’s recent behavior, which, while eccentric throughout his life, shows a level of instability surpassing past antics, with unhinged statements and posts unprecedented in American presidential history.

Professor Jeffrey Sachs: A few days ago, Trump made unusual public remarks, saying, “Open the Strait—you crazy people,” and warned, “Your civilization will end, never to return.” His attack on Pope Leo and posting a picture of himself as Christ, then claiming it was the Red Cross, appears to be a PR stunt. The overall situation remains perplexing.

Professor Jeffrey Sachs: Consider that there may be no formal process and that this man may have experienced mental decline. Even Joe Biden, the former president from the opposing party, showed signs of mental decline last year—something his close associates denied until a debate where he had to speak alone. That incident revealed he wasn’t fully alert. His dementia was concealed during the final years of his presidency.

Professor Jeffrey Sachs: Trump shows signs of mental instability, posting unfiltered, irrational messages on Truth Social, especially at night. These posts seem genuine, not staff-made, indicating serious health concerns. This has been widely discussed in Washington, so it's not just my opinion.

Professor Jeffrey Sachs: My main concern is that, despite believing my arguments are valid—though I acknowledge some uncertainty—Congress members often withdraw from engagement. They have constitutional duties in war and peace oversight, but often stay silent when their party is in power. Trump threatens the Republican Party by possibly opposing its supporters, leaving them feeling trapped and anxious. They hide their positions, dodge responsibility, and the situation keeps worsening.

Prof. Glenn Diesen: Trump shows personality flaws, possibly worsened by mental health issues, and tends to detach from institutions, undermining governance. With Biden, concerns go beyond cover-ups to who ran the White House during his lapses. This is worsened by a polarized society yein which people despise the opposition but justify their own side’s faults.

Professor Jeffrey Sachs: During Biden's tenure, my former colleagues in the administration revealed that top officials rarely interacted directly with the President. Department leaders said, “We don’t really know what’s going on. It’s the White House.” The administration was managed by handlers—his wife, advisors, and insiders.

Professor Jeffrey Sachs: The same situation occurred after World War I, when Wilson had a stroke, kept private by his wife. This reflects a tradition of concealing incapacitated presidents in America. Since the president holds significant power, those close to him may try to control and hide his condition. I believe this is happening again now.

Prof. Glenn Diesen: The issue is bigger than initially thought. Policies targeting China expected that cutting semiconductors would weaken their economy, but China responded to sanctions, surprising Europeans. Similarly, there was an assumption that Russia would be defeated quickly, its economy would collapse, and it would become isolated, which proved false. Despite this, policies still rely on these false assumptions, leaving politicians confused when expectations aren't met.

Professor Jeffrey Sachs: Washington's administrative system is highly incompetent. In the U.S., new administrations fill the top levels primarily through political appointments, often to unqualified candidates. The system is corrupt, with money influencing appointments, which are often based on loyalty, donations, or personal ties to figures like Trump or Biden.

Professor Jeffrey Sachs: We are undergoing deinstitutionalization. The issues you raised were handled by inexperienced individuals. Last year's trade war was led by people out of their depth. Trump lacks economic literacy, ignoring basic concepts like trade deficits. He appointed Howard Lutnick, Peter Navarro, and a small team to carry out an illegal, destabilizing, and misguided trade policy. China’s retaliation demonstrated that the U.S. couldn’t succeed.

Professor Jeffrey Sachs: The Biden situation mirrors the assumption that Putin would quickly capitulate and sanctions like SWIFT exclusion would devastate Russia. It’s a deinstitutionalized process driven by ineffective individuals, aiming at an impossible goal: a potential hegemon that has already lost influence and desperately seeks to cling to power. This pattern is evident in Ukraine, China, and Iran, where amateurs believe that force can overcome anything.

Professor Jeffrey Sachs: Trump’s typical approach is: “I set the demands, and the other side yields.” But this strategy fails. He thought a phone call could solve the Ukraine crisis, believed he could dominate China, and wanted to influence Iran’s next leader. These are personal illusions and show a broader failure of the U.S. understanding of a multipolar world. Instead of cooperating, the mindset is: “We don’t need anyone. We are the U.S. We can do anything. They will submit. I want 100%, not 95%.”

Prof. Glenn Diesen: Historically, large empires develop complex bureaucracies that become sluggish, corrupt, and resistant to reform as they decline, amid increased elite competition. Although common, the cause of this shift in the U.S. remains unclear.

Professor Jeffrey Sachs: In the U.S., bureaucracy is generally less formal across government sectors due to high turnover and political influence, except for the CIA, which is central to foreign policy. Once appointed, directors are quickly integrated and influenced, shaping what is called the 'deep state'.

Professor Jeffrey Sachs: Surprisingly, figures like Hegseth, Lutnick, or Trump are the ones making decisions, despite being awful, ignorant, unstable, and delusional, yet they hold real decision-making power.

Prof. Glenn Diesen: Thank you for your time; I appreciate it, especially given your busy schedule.

Professor Jeffrey Sachs: Great to be with you, Glenn.

Prof. Glenn Diesen: Thanks a lot. Bye-bye.

ANALYSIS |WHAT EVERYONE GOT WRONG ABOUT THE IRAN-US TALKS IN ISLAMABAD

Despite no immediate deal, the first round signaled something more important

© Jacquelyn Martin - Pool / Getty Images

By Farhad Ibragimov – lecturer at the Faculty of Economics at RUDN University, expert and lecturer at the Department of Political Science, Faculty of Social Sciences and Mass Communications, Financial University under the Government of the Russian Federation

@farhadibragim

HomeWorld News
Published 15 April 2026

After the Islamabad talks between Iran and the US, many experts quickly declared the negotiations a failure. However, these assessments are unfounded and overlook the complexities of diplomatic processes. Lack of immediate agreements doesn't mean failure.

When negotiations break down, parties often adopt aggressive language indicating a withdrawal from talks. However, public statements from Iran and the US still leave room for future contacts and show a willingness to continue negotiations and formalize dialogue.

Pakistan’s stance signals its ongoing commitment; instead of withdrawing from negotiations, it has emphasized its willingness to keep mediating. Plans for a second round of talks soon demonstrate Islamabad’s intent to stay involved as a negotiation hub and to safeguard the developing diplomatic channel.

Read more
Here’s why the Iran talks were doomed to fail

Despite uncertainty, the situation isn't cause for optimism. The conflict might escalate into a new cycle, but signs of agreement shouldn't be ignored.

Both Iran and the US continue to make demands, many of which are inflexible or unacceptable. These tactics often serve as bargaining strategies, keeping options open. Some officials show a willingness to make concessions and discuss de-escalation. For example, US Vice President J.D. Vance said Tehran might agree on sensitive issues, and Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi acknowledged the possibility of more talks.

The continued diplomatic efforts indicate that both sides do not see this stage as a final split.

...

Maintaining a realistic outlook is vital. Trump’s unpredictable actions risk collapsing fragile ceasefires. Despite this, discussions in Islamabad look promising, suggesting a durable truce without a full peace deal. Iran seems to be ‘waiting Trump out,’ using its history of strategic patience to its advantage, potentially shaping future outcomes.

Please continue reading ...

What is the Side of the Story that is Not Yet Decisive? Edited and annotated by Abraham A. van Kempen

PROF. JOHN J. MEARSHEIMER | THE TRUMP BLOCKADE WILL FAIL

Prof. John J. Mearsheimer:

“On 12 April 2026, I was on the “Switzerland” podcast with Josh Landis, one of the world’s leading experts on Syria, and the host Tom Switzer.
In the wake of the failed negotiations in Islamabad, President Trump announced that the US would blockade the Strait of Hormuz, meaning Iranian oil would no longer flow from the Persian Gulf into global oil markets. No more oil profits for Tehran.
The basic assumption is that this policy will heavily punish Iran, forcing it to comply with US and Israeli demands. I argued that not only will it fail to achieve its goals, but it will also harm US interests, as Iranian oil is vital to reducing the global economic impact. That’s why the US has permitted Iranian oil to enter the world market so far.
I have repeatedly noted that the Trump administration is pursuing a strategy doomed to fail.
Josh, Tom, and I talked about numerous other issues regarding the Middle East.”

Watch the Video Here (42 minutes, 28 seconds)

Host Tom Switzer
Switzerland with Tom Switzer
Substack.com
13 April 2026

Risks of Enforcing a Naval Blockade (Strait of Hormuz / Iranian Trade) –Key operational, legal, economic, and strategic risks associated with actively interdicting shipping linked to Iran (e.g., stopping, boarding, diverting, seizing, or denying passage).

Escalation to major combat: Interdiction can rapidly shift from economic coercion to kinetic confrontation (warning shots, exchanges of fire, strikes on coastal systems, attacks on bases).
International law and legitimacy risk: Blockades are widely treated as belligerent measures and must meet strict requirements (declaration, effectiveness, impartiality, humanitarian allowances). Perceived illegality increases litigation, diplomatic pushback, and coalition reluctance.
Third-country entanglement: Shipping commonly involves neutral flags/flags of convenience, mixed ownership, and complex cargo chains. Boarding or seizing vessels tied to major powers raises the risk of a broader political or military crisis.
Asymmetric retaliation and force protection burden: Iran and aligned groups can raise costs via mines, drones, coastal anti-ship missiles, cyber, and proxy attacks on regional bases, ports, and shipping—requiring sustained escort, mine countermeasures, ISR, and air defense.
Chokepoint dynamics and accident risk: Congested waterways and heightened alert increase the chance of misidentification, collisions, or unintended escalation from a single incident.
Market and supply-chain blowback: Even limited enforcement can trigger spikes in war-risk insurance, freight rates, and energy prices, as well as route avoidance—creating domestic political pressure and friction with partners.
Evasion and “shadow logistics” adaptation: Sanctioned trade often shifts to ship-to-ship transfers, AIS disabling/spoofing, document fraud, and transshipment hubs—making enforcement a long, resource-intensive cat-and-mouse effort.
Humanitarian and reputational costs: Broad disruption can affect civilian imports and essential goods, generating humanitarian criticism and weakening international support.
Mission creep and endurance risk: Once announced, sustaining credibility may require expanding the target set, tightening rules of engagement, or escalating actions—tying up naval assets and attention for an open-ended period.

Bottom line: A blockade can increase pressure on Iran, but credible enforcement carries disproportionate risks of escalation, third-country incidents, and global economic shock—while determined evasion and asymmetric retaliation can make the operation costly and open-ended.

BAD MOON RISING: WORLD IN EMERGENCY

The legacy world order is collapsing, so what comes next?

By Cameron Macgregor
Substack.com
13 April 2026

_________________________

Editor’s Note | Rather than annotating Macgregor’s impressive 3,644-word essay, I’d like to spark your interest with a brief 573-word summary. Feel free to click on the title above and explore the full depth of Macgregor’s insights firsthand.
_________________________

The essay suggests that the post–World War II, US-led [Ed. EU-US/NATO-led] international system is deteriorating, with recent military escalations involving the United States, Israel, [Ed. EU-US/NATO, including its proxies Israel and Ukraine,] and Iran are speeding up an ongoing transition towards a more multipolar world order. Macgregor believes this shift is not due to a single incident but stems from prolonged economic, financial, and geopolitical trends that have lessened Western influence and boosted the independence of key non-Western nations.

Claimed drivers of the transition

Macgregor emphasizes China’s economic growth, noting its WTO accession in 1999 and the resulting rise in China’s portion of global industrial output as a significant shift in worldwide capacity.

New institutions outside Western leadership: Examples include the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (2001), BRICS (starting in 2009), and China’s development of gold-trading infrastructure (from 2002 onward).

Western financial crisis responses: The 2008 crisis, along with subsequent quantitative easing, repo-market interventions in 2019, and emergency measures during the regional banking stress in 2023, are seen as indicators of ongoing fragility and increasing moral hazard.

Post pandemic inflation and higher interest rates: The essay links pandemic-era stimulus and supply shocks to structurally higher inflation and rate hikes beginning in 2022.

Sanctions and asset freezes: The freezing of Russian assets and broader sanctions following the 2022 invasion of Ukraine are seen as speeding up some countries' efforts to lessen reliance on the dollar-centered financial system.

Market dislocations: Macgregor references incidents like the UK pension-fund episode (2022) and stress in Japan’s bond and currency markets (2024) as signs of shifting global capital flows.

Energy security and maritime chokepoints

A central theme is that military escalation with Iran has revealed the limits of US influence in the Middle East and heightened risks to worldwide energy supplies. The essay highlights the strategic importance of key routes and hubs—namely the Strait of Hormuz, as well as the Bab el-Mandeb, Suez Canal, and Strait of Malacca—and contends that any disruptions in these areas would cause immediate impacts on oil, liquefied natural gas, refined products, and petrochemical feedstocks.

Expected economic effects

The author predicts a supply-driven shock with less seaborne crude, higher transportation costs, affecting electricity, industry, and food. It highlights issues with fertilizer and natural gas, noting outages or restrictions could impact planting and yields in regions with limited reserves.

Furthermore, the essay suggests that commodity “paper” markets, like futures, might become less reliable when physical supply is limited or delivery is uncertain, which could lead to increased volatility. Based on this, it predicts a higher risk of recession and the potential for renewed stress in financial systems already burdened with high debt and deficits.

Political implications (as presented by the author)

The essay argues that Western governments might struggle to mitigate an extended energy and cost-of-living crisis due to existing debt levels and rising borrowing costs. It warns that ongoing shortages and price increases could lead domestic political debates to focus more on managing scarcity rather than sharing prosperity, possibly resulting in greater polarization and a boost for identity-driven movements, such as nationalist parties.

In short, Cameron Macgregor highlights that the Western hegemony is entering a critical, transformative phase. War-related disruptions, especially in energy, could accelerate the transition from a EU-US/NATO-centric system to a more diverse, multipolar world.

The essay concludes that the coming years will serve as a true test of economic resilience and political adaptability, influencing the future of alliances, markets, and global governance.

GUEST EDITORIAL | HARBINGER HUNGARY

The EU’s escalating attack on Hungary’s elections is not a bug but a feature

TARIK CYRIL AMAR
Substack.com
29 March 2026

About a century ago, during the period between the two World Wars—an era Europeans called the "Value Garden"—there was a joke about Hungary: it was a monarchy without a king and a landlocked country governed by an admiral. It was amusing because, in fact, it was accurate.

Today, the EU, now 27 members and 450 million people, is led by an unelected German official who primarily serves the US. This leader has a "shield" to safeguard a “democracy," though this term is used skeptically, managed by an opaque, privileged elite of unelected bureaucrats.

Contemporary Hungary is quite normal—neither better nor worse than most countries. It has evolved from a strange monarchy to a typical Western-style capitalist democracy. Its leader, Viktor Orban, is a clever, successful politician who skillfully blends demagoguery with sharp political tactics.

In Hungary, when electoral districts are reconfigured, the ruling party likely favors options benefiting itself, similar to US practices often called the EU’s 'big brother.' Doing business in Hungary is easier when connected to ruling parties. This pattern exists in the US, with President Biden consolidating benefits for himself. Germany and France show similar tendencies. Recently, France hit a new low in Transparency International’s corruption index.

Critics claim Hungary's mass media lacks impartiality, but no country has completely unbiased media—Germany, Britain, France, or the US included. Currently, the EU and German authorities misuse sanctions meant for foreign policy to bypass legal processes, violate rights, and unjustly target dissidents and journalists.

Hungary’s elections might be affected by media bias and strict administrative practices. However, the same can be said for all major European countries and the US. Although voting under current Orbanism has its issues, it has not involved the severe, EU-influenced manipulation recently observed in Romania and Moldova.

...

You might suspect Orban of aiming for an electoral advantage. However, even if true, it doesn't change the fact that the Zelensky regime engages in aggressive subversion. Ask the Germans about their pipelines—those who are bolder might dare to answer.

As we live in modern, online times, the shape much of the escalating EU meddling on the side of Orban’s opponents in Budapest and Kyiv has taken is a nasty combination of social media manipulation at scale, illicit surveillance and spying, and the targeted dissemination of what is meant to be compromising information.

...

In Brussels, within the “European Democracy Shield” (EDS) and Digital Services Act (DSA), a Rapid Response mechanism was activated to combat disinformation and foreign influence. However, it mainly enables the Commission’s agencies to monitor social media, censor content opposing Orban, and boost his competitors.

...

What is concerning is that this is just a part of a broader, long-term strategy evolving over a decade. The “European Democracy Shield” and the DSA are part of a growing ecosystem of narrative management, including initiatives like the “Defense of Democracy Package,” the “European Democracy Action Plan,” and the Digital Markets Act. Supporting this agenda is a costly network of civil society organizations and NGOs that facilitate censorship and promote indoctrination.

Hungary signals future EU escalation, showing EU 'elites” seek control over thoughts, speech, and votes. Whether for or against Viktor Orban—criticized for supporting Israel—you should oppose EU tactics to curb him, as they threaten us all.

Please continue reading ...

FROM SYDNEY | WORLD AT WAR: UKRAINE, IRAN, CHINA & THE US

Prof. Glenn Diesen on Devil’s Advocate

I appeared on Devil’s Advocate, where my views on Ukraine, Iran, China, and the US were questioned.

If Iran faces an existential threat and needs to defend itself, does Ukraine also have the right to self-defense?
If Taiwan seeks self-determination, should the West support its independence?
Do major powers have the right to a sphere of interest or influence near their borders?
What might seem justified by norms could prove disastrous in the realm of great-power politics.

Watch the Video Here (1 hour, 20 minutes)

Host Han Yang
Devil’s Advocate, Sydney
14 April 2026

A conversation with Prof. Glenn Diesen (@GDiesen1) about the situation in Ukraine, NATO expansion, the conflict with Iran, the relations between Russia and China, the Monroe Doctrine, Taiwan, the South China Sea, multipolarity, Westphalian sovereignty, and realism in international relations.

Prof. Diesen is an expert in Russian foreign policy and author of 'The Ukraine War & the Eurasian World Order.'

He states that 500 years of Western liberal hegemony are coming to an end and that a new multipolar world order is emerging, with Eurasian power at its center.

BUILDING THE BRIDGE! | A WAY TO GET TO KNOW THE OTHER AND ONE ANOTHER

Making a Difference – The Means, Methods, and Mechanisms for Many to Move Mountains

Photo Credit: Abraham A. van Kempen, our home away from home on the Dead Sea

By Abraham A. van Kempen
Senior Editor
Updated 19 January 2024

Those who commit to 'healing our broken humanity' build intercultural bridges to learn to know and understand one another and others. Readers who thumb through the Building the Bridge (BTB) pages are not mindless sheep following other mindless sheep. They THINK. They want to be at the forefront of making a difference. They're seeking the bigger picture to expand their horizons. They don't need BTB or anyone else to confirm their biases.

Making a Difference – The Means, Methods, and Mechanisms for Many to Move Mountains

Accurate knowledge fosters understanding, dispels prejudice, and sparks a desire to learn more about the subject. Words have an extraordinary power to bring people together, divide them, forge bonds of friendship, or provoke hostility. Modern technology offers unprecedented possibilities for good, fostering harmony and reconciliation. Yet, its misuse can cause untold harm, leading to misunderstandings, prejudices, and conflicts.

Continue reading

A Free Trial for Life – SUBSCRIBE NOW!

• It's quick and straightforward.

• We won’t ask for your credit card number.

• Just enter your e-mail address to receive your complimentary free-for-life subscription to our newsletter.

• Please include your First and Last Name.

• We won’t share or sell your e-mail address.

_________________________

Related Articles Recently Posted on www.buildingthebridgefoundation.com:

OUR FRIDAY NEWS ANALYSIS

OUR WEDNESDAY NEWS ANALYSIS

OUR MONDAY EDITION

________________________