The Friday Edition

Our Friday News Analysis | What the World Reads Now!

May 07, 2026

Helping to Heal a Broken Humanity (Part 85)

The Hague, 08 May 2026 | If you know of a decisive story, tell the world! We're still searching.

Watch the Video Here (2 Minutes, 34 Seconds)

FIRST AMERICAN TO REPORT FROM IRAN'S B1 BRIDGE BOMBED BY US

Wyatt Reed was the first US journalist to visit the massive Iranian infrastructure project destroyed by US attacks

Wyatt Reed
The Grayzone And
Substack.com
6 May 2026

Wyatt Reed of The Grayzone reports from the B1 Bridge in Karaj, Iran, covering the damage caused by a massive US assault that destroyed a key infrastructure project, after President Donald Trump threatened to bomb it "back to the Stone Age."

Wyatt, the first American journalist to cover the war crime, significantly undermines the US justification for the attack by showing that the bridge couldn't be used for military transport. He also describes the devastating human impact, noting that the bombing took place on Iran's ‘Nature Day’ when many families were picnicking nearby.

Editorial | A Paradigm Shift – “Mind Your Own Business” ...

A new take on “Mind Your Own Business” views it as a gentle reminder to respect privacy and boundaries. Instead of a harsh command, it's encouragement to give people and sovereign nations space to manage their own affairs. This perspective promotes understanding and kindness, leading to more friendly social interactions and international relations.

Germans returning home from the east in 1945. Credit: The German Federal Archives Our Wednesday News Analysis | Europe’s Moral Crisis

By Abraham A. van Kempen
8 May 2026

Mind Your Own Business

To be continued on Monday, 11 May 2026.

Enjoy your weekend,

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.

CHAS FREEMAN: US-ISRAEL DIVORCE, END OF NATO & SEA POWER

Ambassador Chas Freeman discusses how declining sea power impacts transportation routes and energy control. He also predicts the US's relative decline will end NATO and cause divergence with Israel.

Modern coastal anti-access/area-denial (A2/AD) systems—like long-range missiles, drones, mines, air defenses, and persistent ISR—are reducing traditional blue-water sea control. This forces major navies to operate farther away. It's a pivotal moment after centuries of Anglo-American maritime dominance, where legal boundaries matter less than the reach of shore-based weapons and surveillance.

Using the Strait of Hormuz as an example, the argument is that the key factor is the coastal threat environment rather than small-boat forces. Reopening a blocked chokepoint by force would require a risky, costly campaign to suppress dispersed coastal assets, risking escalation—making negotiation the most practical option. The text also covers secondary effects, including risks to energy supply, higher transport and insurance costs, strain on naval deployments, and alternatives such as currency swaps. It concludes with broader geopolitical impacts, including increased alliance tensions, independent rearmament, and a gradual escalation path rather than a quick resolution.

Ambassador Freeman, former Assistant Secretary of Defense, received the Defense Department's top awards for creating a NATO-focused European security system after the Cold War and reestablishing defense ties with China. He also served as U.S. Ambassador to Saudi Arabia during Desert Shield and Desert Storm.

Watch the Video Here (52 minutes, 42 seconds)

Host Prof. Glenn Diesen
Substack.com
06 May 2026

Summary of the Discussion in Q/A Fomat

Q: What is the core strategic shift described in this discussion?

A: The discussion shifts from traditional blue-water control to coastal A2/AD, emphasizing land-based precision strikes, unmanned systems, and persistent Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR). These enable long-range targeting, shorten the “kill chain,” and threaten key naval platforms. Consequently, they limit maneuverability in maritime chokepoints, complicating navigation and defense.

Q: How does Amb. Freeman place maritime dominance in a historical context?

A: Amb. Freeman identifies maritime supremacy as a crucial factor for projecting global power and safeguarding commerce, stating that Britain’s dominance of Sea Lines of Communication (SLOCs) in the 18th–19th centuries shifted to U.S. naval dominance by 1945. Currently, advancements in technology (precision strike and sensing) are eroding the traditional advantage surface fleets had in contested coastal areas.

Q: Why are traditional territorial-sea limits (e.g., 3 miles, 12 miles) described as outdated?

A: Legal maritime space bands are poor indicators of actual military control, as modern coastal defenses extend beyond 12 nautical miles with long-range missiles, Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs), and maritime awareness. This enlarges the real “weapons engagement zone” and forces adversary platforms outside traditional threat rings.

Q: What is meant by a “land-based sea blockade”?

A: It explains how sea denial is enforced from the coast using shore-based fires—coastal defense cruise missiles, ballistic missiles, loitering munitions—along with air defenses, mines, and ISR to create an exclusion zone. This disrupts chokepoint traffic without requiring a continuous surface-ship presence.

Q: What does the discussion claim about the Strait of Hormuz specifically?

A: It argues that the coastal threat envelope around the strait—missile batteries, UAV/ISR, mines, and fast attack craft—risks transit ships and deters large vessels. Targeting small boats doesn’t greatly reduce shore-based fires and ISR capabilities that create the exclusion threat.

Q: Why do aircraft carriers and other ships operate farther from shore in this account?

A: The discussion links increased standoff ranges to better anti-ship tools, like ASCMs, ballistic systems, and drones, which expand contested zones. Consequently, high-value units such as carriers and logistics ships operate more cautiously to avoid detection, tracking, and engagement within enemy weapon employment zones (WEZs).

Q: What does Amb. Freeman suggest about “freedom of navigation” operations under these conditions?

A: Amb. Freeman suggests FONOPs and presence ops may lose strategic value when coastal A2/AD systems make escorts and logistics too risky or costly, creating a gap between legal passage rights and the ability to project power and protect SLOCs in contested coastal areas.

Q: What options are presented for reopening a blocked waterway, and how are they assessed?

A: Two options are presented:

(1) Launch a kinetic suppression campaign targeting coastal denial structures like ISR nodes, launchers, C2, air defenses, and mines, or

(2) Pursue negotiated de-escalation.

Amb. Freeman notes that option (1) risks escalation, involves strikes, and is less cost-effective for dispersed or deniable systems. Negotiation is seen as the best way to reopen passage, but it is currently not making effective progress.

Q: What economic and financial knock-on effects are discussed?

A: The discussion highlights supply risks like chokepoints causing energy disruptions, higher premiums, freight, and insurance costs. It also covers challenges from long naval deployments, including operational and maintenance issues. Additionally, it considers solutions to reduce reliance on dollar-based settlement and sanctions, such as currency swap lines and alternative payment methods.

Q: What broader geopolitical shifts are mentioned beyond the immediate conflict?

A: Amb. Freeman predicts that alliance stress-testing—such as burden-sharing and threat perception—will intensify, with faster rearmament and more autonomous planning. Expect more strategic hedging in Europe and the Indo-Pacific as partners reassess U.S. escalation management, resilience, and regional security support.

Q: How does the discussion frame “land power” versus “sea power” today?

A: There's a shift toward land-based maritime denial strategies using coastal fires, ISR, and other tactics to challenge maritime movements and make local sea control costly. Navies remain globally mobile, but near-peer adversaries near coasts may prefer to defend by maintaining standoff distances and imposing attrition risks.

Q: What is said about China’s role in this evolving balance?

A: Amb. Freeman notes China’s rapid naval and industrial growth but argues that inheriting sea control is more complex because adversaries challenge forward operations with long-range strikes and distributed sensing. He stresses the importance of resilient logistics, counter-ISR, dispersed basing, and contesting the kill chain, rather than merely increasing ship numbers.

Q: Why do railroads and overland connectivity appear in a discussion about maritime rivalry?

A: The discussion highlights overland corridors as a strategic backup in logistics. Rail and road routes, with transshipment hubs, can bypass maritime chokepoints, undermining interdiction or sanctions. Attacks on, and rapid repairs of, this infrastructure can influence trade routes and sustain supply chains.

Q: What trajectory does Amb. Freeman predict for the conflict?

A: He anticipates a prolonged contest with ups and downs, focusing on signaling intentions, deterring actions, and managing escalations. Trade and security disruptions are possible, but a lasting resolution seems unlikely.

YANIS VAROUFAKIS: EUROPE ENTERING A CENTURY OF HUMILIATION?

Yanis Varoufakis is an economist, the former Finance Minister of Greece, and the author of numerous bestselling books.
Varoufakis discusses why Europe is possibly sliding into a century of humiliation".

Watch the Video Here (48 Minutes, 25 seconds)

Host Prof. Glenn Diesen
Substack.com
06 May 2026

Prof. Diesen’s conversation with Yanis Varoufakis highlights that Europe’s ongoing economic stagnation, democratic gaps within institutions, and strategic dependencies are long-standing issues.

These challenges stem not from recent times but from decisions made after the 2008 financial crisis and from inherent flaws in the euro project’s design.

Varoufakis points out that the focus on crisis management, especially bank bailouts and the transfer of losses onto weaker taxpayers through austerity measures, has led to reduced demand, slowed investment, and increased deindustrialization—effects that are now visible even in Germany.

Post-2008 crisis response: Europe effectively socialized banking losses while imposing austerity on the broader public, sidelining democratic institutions, and empowering opaque decision-making bodies.
Economic mechanism: Austerity reduced aggregate demand; cheap liquidity and quantitative easing fueled asset inflation and share buybacks rather than real investment, contributing to wage and pension pressure and long-run stagnation.
Germany as bellwether: The German model is portrayed as undermined by underinvestment and weak European demand, driving deindustrialization and a pivot toward defense production as a stopgap.
Strategic dependency: The EU is described as structurally intertwined with U.S. power and NATO, limiting European sovereignty; recent geopolitical framing (e.g., Ukraine) is seen as reinforcing dependence rather than building a coherent European strategy.
Governance and legitimacy: Varoufakis argues that rule-of-law enforcement and “European values” are applied selectively, fostering cynicism and insulating aligned leaders while punishing dissent.

Outlook and alternative: The forecast predicts an extended period of decline for Europe unless there's a significant shift toward investment-led integration, such as a stronger common fiscal capacity and growth institutions. However, the discussion concludes with a plea for collective political change instead of resignation.

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

DID YOU KNOW THE US AND ISRAEL HELPED CREATE IRAN’S NUCLEAR PROJECT? HERE’S THE STORY

From research reactors and Western contracts to blockades and threats of war, Iran’s nuclear history is also a history of Western reversal

By Elizaveta Naumova
Russian political journalist
The Higher School of Economics
HomeWorld News
5 May 2026

What about the 3,000 killed in Iran, 2,020 in Lebanon, 23 in Israel, and over a dozen in Gulf states after the US intervention against Iran? This is called "a little Middle East work" that’s going "very well," as Trump said at a White House dinner for King Charles.

Trump’s ‘little work’, which caused significant casualties and lacked a clear initial goal, was later described as aiming to prevent ‘Americans and their children from being threatened by a nuclear-armed Iran.”

We have defeated that specific opponent militarily, and Charles agrees with me even more— we will never allow that opponent to acquire a nuclear weapon.

Will Charles help Donald ensure no obstacles—personnel or otherwise—that could allow Iran to advance its nuclear program? It seems the US aims to dismantle Iran entirely. According to The Atlantic, the Trump administration considered strikes not only on Iran’s military but also on internal factions within the regime believed to block a deal.

Trump shared a video by Washington Post columnist Marc Thiessen advocating for an air campaign. Axios reported that the military developed options for a "short and powerful" series of strikes, which were presented to the president by General Dan Caine, the Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman.

The timing is politically sensitive. Trump’s state visit to China is set for mid-May, after a previous reschedule. If strikes happen, they might occur before the trip to show strength or after once diplomatic issues are resolved.

While Trump delivered the performance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio outlined the doctrine. When Trump emphasized military victory, royal agreement, and Iran’s prohibition from acquiring nuclear weapons, Rubio shared the same stance as a strategic imperative: Iran’s government is untrustworthy, its future intentions are clear, and any agreement ignoring the nuclear issue is unacceptable.

US President Donald Trump speaks to reporters as he and Secretary of State Marco Rubio (L) depart the White House on their way to Florida on March 20, 2026, in Washington, D.C. © Getty Images / Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

He stated the nuclear issue is the main reason for our involvement from the start, emphasizing that Iran’s "radical clerical regime' will pursue nuclear weapons if it remains in power, necessitating immediate action.

There's irony here. Hearing Trump and Rubio, you'd think Iran’s nuclear program suddenly appeared, a secret project motivated only by anti-Western and clerical aims. But that's not true.

Read more: War without end? How Israel became trapped in its own security doctrine

Iran’s nuclear program began during the Shah's era with direct US support, not with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the Islamic Republic, or as an anti-American effort.

When Iran’s nuclear dream was a Western project

Nikolay Sukhov of the Primakov Institute and HSE University told RT that Iran’s nuclear program began as a pro-Western modernization during the Shah’s era, with Western nations playing a key role.

Sukhov explained that the Atoms for Peace program, launched by Eisenhower, aimed to provide nuclear technology to US allies for peaceful purposes such as research, energy, and medicine.

Under the Shah, Iran was one of Washington’s priority partners.

Practical implementation began in the late 1950s, when Iran and the US signed an agreement on the peaceful use of nuclear energy. Washington agreed to provide Tehran with nuclear facilities and equipment and assist in training Iranian experts.

In 1967, the US gave Iran its first research reactor, and Iranian nuclear experts were trained in the US, Britain, Belgium, West Germany, Italy, Switzerland, and France. Experts from Israel, West Germany, France, and the US collaborated on building reactors at Bushehr and Isfahan. Iran ratified the NPT in 1970, confirming the peaceful aim of its nuclear program.

Read more: How Washington keeps breaking the Middle East

Few in the West saw Iran’s nuclear program as a threat at the time, as Iran was under Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, a US ally and key part of the Middle East strategy.

The Shah’s nuclear ambitions were not just for peace; they were part of the broader 'White Revolution’ launched in 1963—a modernization effort called the 'revolution of the Shah and the people.”

In fifteen years, Iran rapidly transformed from a mainly agrarian nation to developing steel plants, factories, petrochemicals, auto and tractor factories, gas, and aluminum industries, and laying the groundwork for shipbuilding and aircraft manufacturing.

“The shah relied on nuclear energy to boost industry and reduce oil dependence. Ironically, he believed nuclear power would allow more oil to be exported," Sukhov explained.

Mohammad Reza Pahlavi listened to Israeli advisers who argued that oil-rich Iran deserved nuclear power plants. This is notable because Israel now views Iran’s nuclear program as an unavoidable threat. During the Shah’s era, Israeli involvement in Iran’s strategic and tech development was common, with strong security, intelligence, and technical ties. Iran, now seen as a threat, was then part of a regional order that Washington and its allies sought to strengthen.

Mohammed Reza Pahlavi in Tehran, Iran, October 4th 1960. © Getty Images / Keystone/Hulton Archive/Getty Images

Israel’s involvement began in May 1958, when David Ben-Gurion met two Iranian nuclear scientists, who said they wanted to connect with Israel’s scientific community and noted, “We have heard that in everything concerning science, you are at the level of the Americans.”

The Shah aimed to transform Iran from the Middle Ages into the nuclear era, believing his program would make Iran a leading Middle Eastern nation. He confidently said Iran would have nuclear weapons "without a doubt and sooner than one would think," though he later retracted this.

Although Western nations mainly saw Iran as a partner, Washington harbored concerns. Declassified documents from Ford and Carter show US officials worried about the Shah’s pursuit of plutonium reprocessing, which could lead to a nuclear bomb faster than uranium enrichment. Yet no action was taken to stop it or to anticipate the revolution that would erupt within a few years.

Read more: How the West rejected Hamas’ democratic victory and led Gaza to disaster

Sukhov explained that Western experts in the 1960s and 1970s did not assist Iran with a military nuclear program. Instead, they helped establish a civilian nuclear system for an allied nation that relied on Western technology. Ultimately, this system's personnel, infrastructure, and institutions enabled Iran to achieve nuclear independence later.

The Revolution that inherited the atom

By 1979, when the Shah fell, Iran’s first two nuclear reactors, built with German help, were nearly finished. Despite the monarchy's fall, the infrastructure and the idea that nuclear technology symbolized development, prestige, and independence persisted.

Sukhov said the Islamic Revolution was a turning point, leading most Western experts to leave Iran, halting projects and cooperation with the US and Europe. Still, Iran's infrastructure and experts set the stage for a later, more self-reliant and secretive program that was harder for the West to influence.

Then came the Iran-Iraq War.

Between 1980 and 1988, Iraqi air attacks repeatedly targeted the Bushehr region. The incomplete nuclear plant, clearly visible from afar, served as a symbolic and obvious target. Iranian media, as cited in the source, claims that American aid allegedly directed Saddam Hussein’s pilots toward the site multiple times. These attacks resulted in worker casualties, damage to the plant, and transformed what was once a prestigious Shah-era project into a battlefield ruin.

Iranian president Abolhassan Banisadr during a visit to the frontlines © Wikipedia

For Iran, the surrounding region's militarization, preemptive strikes, and nuclear capability as vital for survival were clear lessons. During the Iran-Iraq War, the idea of an ‘Islamic atomic bomb’ likely emerged among some Iranian leaders.

Iran publicly framed the resurgence of the Shah’s nuclear initiatives as mainly about diversifying energy sources. Despite abundant oil and gas, Iran sought technological independence, viewing nuclear tech as a symbol of progress and sovereignty. The military aspect was just part of its broader goal for self-sufficiency in weapons, technology, and industry.

After Ayatollah Khomeini’s death in 1989, Iran changed its nuclear policy. Under Ayatollah Khamenei, Iran revived its nuclear ambitions and advanced its capabilities. By the early 1990s, while recovering from the Iran-Iraq War, Iran was rebuilding its disrupted nuclear program caused by revolution, bombings, sanctions, and the departure of foreign experts.

Read more: They don’t care if you die: How Iran’s protests became a bargaining chip for oil and power

Under US pressure, Germany, India, and Argentina rejected supporting Iran’s nuclear program. Iran looked for other partners like China, Russia, and Pakistan. China set up nuclear cooperation protocols with Iran in 1985 and 1990, providing research reactors, enrichment and fuel equipment, and natural uranium. Russia also agreed to help Iran’s civilian nuclear efforts, culminating in a 1992 cooperation agreement.

In 1995, Iran signed a cooperation agreement with Russia to complete the Bushehr nuclear reactor, a project that had begun under the Shah with German involvement and was disrupted during the Iran-Iraq War.

This cooperation was controversial, especially in Washington. Then-President Bill Clinton urged then-Russian President Boris Yeltsin to stop nuclear support to Iran, citing concerns over civilian nuclear ties strengthening Iran’s technical abilities. However, in Russia, some analysts believed nuclear cooperation could foster oversight and control, with Russia's involvement providing contacts and leverage to keep the project civilian. At this time, the International Atomic Energy Agency had not found evidence of a military aspect in Iran’s nuclear program.

During the post-Soviet period, Russia needed major industrial contracts, and the Bushehr project provided revenue for Russian companies and the government. Moscow saw it as a civilian energy project and a way to keep Russia’s position in the nuclear industry, not mainly a risky geopolitical move.

Concerns persisted as reports showed Russian contractors offering support like aid in heavy-water infrastructure and uranium mining, which Washington viewed as excessive. US and Israeli officials feared Iran was developing nuclear power and building an industrial base that could expedite military capabilities if Tehran decided to pursue them.

View of the reactor building at the Russian-built Bushehr nuclear power plant as the first fuel is loaded, on August 21, 2010, in Bushehr, southern Iran. © Getty Images / IIPA via Getty Images

By 1999, Iranian specialists began testing enrichment equipment linked to Natanz. In 2002, the Iranian opposition Mujahedin-e Khalq revealed Natanz and Arak during a period when the US was focused on WMDs, rogue states, and non-state actors.

By early 2003, Iran had installed 164 centrifuges and was expanding with more units. Natanz aimed to host tens of thousands of centrifuges. At Arak, inspectors found construction related to heavy-water production and a plutonium reactor.

Iran’s nuclear program shifted from suspicion to the center of an international crisis.

Read more: 40 years after Chornobyl: Inside the night, the Soviet nuclear dream exploded

The program becomes the crisis

The growing mistrust towards countries aiding Iran's nuclear program is widely acknowledged.

Although Iran adopted the Additional Protocol to the NPT in 2003 and extended its nuclear suspension in 2004, Western countries still mistrusted Iran. In 2005, the US accused Iran of breaching commitments and advancing a nuclear program, based on intelligence from a stolen Iranian laptop.

Although experts doubted the reliability of this material, suggesting that Iranian opposition groups or a hostile state might have fabricated the evidence, Washington promoted an IAEA resolution condemning Iran for concealment and NPT breaches. Iran’s foreign minister, Manouchehr Mottaki, described the resolution as ‘illegal and illogical,’ asserting it was a US-orchestrated scenario.

From that moment, the approach became more fixed. Washington and its allies publicly emphasized diplomacy, inspections, safeguards, and nonproliferation. Privately, the US and Israel shared intelligence and secretly worked to hinder Iran’s progress.

Read more: The CIA, optimistic assumptions, and imperial oversight: How the US caused its own collapse in Cuba

What began as a Western-backed modernization under the Shah became an ongoing international crisis under the Islamic Republic.

The irony remained: Iran’s nuclear program once had American, European, and Israeli backing and global legitimacy. After 1979, this shifted; it was no longer a friendly monarchy’s nuclear vision but a distant state's aspiration.

Today’s American outrage echoes history. Trump aims to undo past policies, while Israel seeks to dismantle a nuclear capacity once supported by Israeli experts. The issue isn't that Iran’s nuclear program was ‘good’ when the West helped develop it and ‘bad’ after the Islamic Republic took power, but that it became unacceptable once it was no longer under US influence.

After 1979, a government resistant to Washington took control of Iran's infrastructure, institutions, and expertise. Despite losing Western backing, Iran sustained its nuclear program through procurement, covert development, and partial localization, creating a more independent cycle. This allowed Iran to approach weapons-grade levels without formally leaving the NPT. The challenge for Washington was not just Iran's nuclear capabilities, but its ability to develop and maintain them independently, making the program difficult to contain.

FROM TEHRAN | SEYED M. MARANDI: RETURN TO ALL-OUT WAR - WHAT HAPPENS NOW

Prof. Seyed Mohammad Marandi analyzes the potential return to full-scale war.
The US announced plans to reopen the Strait of Hormuz on May 4, but this effort failed and was followed by several attacks.
Although Trump might try to retract this stance, it is more probable that full-scale war will resume as the US's window of opportunity narrows.

Watch the Video Here (43 Minutes, 43 Seconds)

Host Prof. Glenn Diesen
Substack.com
05 May 2026

Conflicting reports around the Strait of Hormuz and what escalation could mean for the region—and the global economy.

Prof. Seyed Mohamed Marandi (Professor, Tehran University; former advisor to Iran’s nuclear negotiation team) says the region is moving toward wider conflict, with the Strait of Hormuz at the center and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) a key target because of its alignment with Israel.

He warns that sustained disruption to Gulf energy exports could rapidly spill over into broader supply chain and economic shocks.

Prof. Marandi argues U.S. escalation reflects desperation and says the pace and scope of any expansion—potentially including the Red Sea—will depend on what Washington targets, especially whether critical infrastructure is hit.

Strait of Hormuz, Escalation Risks, and the Road Ahead

Q (Interviewer): Are we heading toward all-out war?

We’re moving toward all-out war; the U.S. tried to force ships through the Strait of Hormuz and failed.
Civilian boats were destroyed, then later labeled “targets” to justify the operation.
Iran holds the U.S. responsible for strikes on Emirati targets, directly or indirectly.
Marandi doubts the U.S. carried out those strikes itself.
He calls it a bad day for the U.S. and says the UAE has become a key front because of its alignment with Israel.
Gulf governments tightly manage social media, spending heavily to shape narratives.
Many people back Iran when it hits Gulf regimes, except Wahhabi/Salafi currents linked to groups like ISIS and al-Qaeda.
Global opinion largely tilts toward Iran, and the UAE is widely disliked for its alignment with Israel.
Israeli forces assist the UAE, and strikes on Emirati targets are widely seen as Israel-linked; he adds that the U.S. failed to move ships through Hormuz, and civilians were killed on an Iranian cargo boat.
The crisis could quickly shift from higher energy and food prices to major supply chain disruptions.
U.S. moves suggest preparations for possible ground operations, alongside expanded air operations and refueling support.

Q (Interviewer): Why is Iran targeting the UAE, and what happens next in the Strait of Hormuz?

Iran has long warned it would target oil and gas, and the surprise reflects underestimating Iran.
Western media dismissed Iranian missiles and treated Tehran’s warnings as a bluff.
The U.S. faces ammunition limits, but the bigger risk is a prolonged halt in Gulf energy exports and a global depression.
Iran can manage output under pressure, while Gulf producers are more exposed to infrastructure damage and shipping disruptions.
Even a short war won’t solve the Hormuz crisis, and a wider conflict could halt exports for months or longer.
Summer heat narrows operations, and any attack on critical infrastructure could trigger a short, intense regional escalation.
Iran is better prepared than in earlier phases and argues that U.S. escalation shows that pressure tactics are not working.
Marandi calls the “siege” an act of war and says escalating now signals desperation and heightens global economic risk.

Q (Interviewer): Why do Western media keep downplaying Iran’s capabilities?

Rivals are cast as both weak and existentially dangerous, a mindset he says leads to repeated strategic misreads.

Q (Interviewer): If the blockade was “working,” why did the U.S. return to war and then seek a ceasefire?

Washington kept acting as if Iran was collapsing, even though the U.S. pushed for a ceasefire and accepted Iran’s negotiation framework.
A U.S. plan was rejected, Iran offered a 10-point plan, and Trump accepted it, but media commentary still framed Iran as desperate.
Ridicule masquerading as analysis still shapes elite opinion and policy.
The siege narrative shifted to “Iranian ports” and came too late; he claims Hormuz was effectively closed for weeks while Iran benefited from high prices.
Iran planned alternative routes and markets, while U.S. escalation pushed the global economy closer to the edge.
Trump was likely testing whether Iran could be intimidated into allowing ships to pass without retaliation.

Q (Interviewer): Was this a U.S. probe to see if Iran would stand down?

Expert class loyal to narratives can replace analysis with hostility, producing bad policy.

Q (Interviewer): If war escalates, how quickly could the Red Sea be affected?

Escalation in the Red Sea and beyond would depend on how long and how hard the U.S. escalates, and what it targets.
Limited strikes would still draw retaliation, but attacks on Iran’s critical infrastructure would bring far harsher consequences for Gulf states.
Iran aims to avoid civilians and frames its position as deterrence: escalate, and Iran will escalate.
Gulf power and energy systems are concentrated and easier to cripple than Iran’s more dispersed network.

Q (Interviewer): Thanks for your time—please stay safe.

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

________________________

The views expressed are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of the Building the Bridge Foundation

LATEST OPEN LETTERS

03-02
TO WORLD LEADERS
06-01
Standing in Solidarity with the People of Venezuela
21-07
Freedom
20-03
Stand up to Trump
18-02
Average Americans Response
23-12
Tens of thousands of dead children.......this must stop
05-06
A Call to Action: Uniting for a Lasting Peace in the Holy Land
28-05
Concerned world citizen
13-02
World Peace
05-12
My scream to the world