Posted originally on Feb 26, 2026 by Martin Armstrong |
Hungary is deploying troops to protect its nation against Ukraine’s oil blockade. The war in Ukraine has mutated into something far larger and far more dangerous than the public is led to believe. Orban will “deploy soldiers and equipment to protect key energy infrastructure” as the tensions between Ukraine and Hungary boil over.
“I see that Ukraine is preparing further actions aimed at harming our energy infrastructure,” Orban noted, and thus the Hungarian military and police will be positioned around power plants, distribution stations, and control centers as a defensive measure.
Europe has been deeply split over how to handle Russian energy and the war against Moscow. Hungary and Slovakia heavily rely on Russian energy and cannot bend to Brussels at the expense of their economies. Orban recently vetoed a €90 billion EU loan to Ukraine unless oil flows through the Druzhba pipeline resume, illustrating that Budapest’s priorities are no longer aligned with Brussels.
Under stress and loss of confidence, nations shift from collective alliance goals to nationalist survival strategies. Hungary’s actions are not a spontaneous security reaction; they are emerging amid an intensifying domestic political campaign ahead of a critical April election. The people are beginning to view the European Union as a hindrance rather than an alliance. Hungary has become the black sheep of the bloc.
The war in Ukraine has ceased to be just a battlefield conflict. It is a catalyst for realignment within Europe, and it is exposing the cracks between governments that see the conflict as a strategic priority and those that see it as a liability. What we are witnessing is the beginning of a deeper fragmentation in Western policy, where alliances are tested not only by external adversaries but by the internal cycles of confidence, power, and national survival.
Posted originally on Feb 26, 2026 by Martin Armstrong |
Americans “still trust Trump more than the Democrats — and in every category,” according to an ABC poll. The joke used in the piece is actually very telling: in politics, you do not need to outrun the lion, you just need to outrun the other candidate. That is a far more accurate description of modern democratic systems than any ideological explanation.
People do not suddenly develop blind trust in government. They shift confidence away from institutions they believe have failed them. When voters say they trust one political figure more than a party, it is often a vote against the establishment rather than a vote for a personality. Left-leaning policies failed. Every American suffered a decline in their quality of life during the Biden Administration as a direct result of his policies that curbed the US economy in favor of globalist policies. The Build Back Better community collectively agreed that America should no longer be the world’s leading superpower. Then an anti-establishment politician entered the arena and demanded nationalism. Meanwhile, the Democrats continue pushing the same failed policies that the majority no longer support.
Approval ratings for Trump’s presidency still sit in the low 40% range, with disapproval in the mid-to-high 50% range, depending on the aggregate, which demonstrates a deeply divided electorate rather than unified support. At the same time, surveys repeatedly show dissatisfaction with both major parties, leaving many voters mistrusting the political system as a whole. Modern polling is highly fragmented, and partisan interpretation dominates the narrative. One poll may show distrust of Trump on specific issues like inflation or foreign policy, while another shows voters trusting Republicans more than Democrats on key economic concerns.
In October, only 18% of Americans said they were “better off” under Trump compared to 22% today. Most realize that the nation’s economic reality is not the result of a single politician. Furthermore, the difference between an isolated politician and the entire Democratic Party is ever so slight. There is only a 1% difference, for example, in voters believing Trump solely is reducing the cost of living compared to Congressional Democrats.
In the end, the real takeaway is not that one side is overwhelmingly trusted. The real story is that confidence in the political class as a whole continues to decline, and voters are making choices based on credibility rather than absolute belief. That is a far more dangerous long-term trend than any single poll headline.
Posted originally on Feb 25, 2026 by Martin Armstrong |
The press refuses to honestly review the facts because they are caught up in pushing socialism and they try to look the other way when some indicators show resilience and fail to understand that we are in the midst of paradigm shift in the economy just as we were during the 19th century moving from agriculture into the industrial revolution and from that into a service economy due to taxes and regulation, and then the DOT.COM economic shift with the internet that put a lot of small local stores out of business. Now we have the paradigm shift that is far more complex for this is not just the AI bubble like the DOT.COM bubble, but the final leg of the Sovereign Debt Crisis that is spreading from the peripheral economies in Asia and Europe that will eventually overtake the United States as the FREE MARKETS force political change.
GDP Growth blasted past ALL expectations in the July-September quarter to reach an annualized 4.3%, the strongest performance in two years compared to the EU at 1.5%. Economic growth has surged to its fastest pace in two years and the new job creation has been in the private sector compared to the Biden years of expanding government.
The benchmark S&P 500 is up nearly 18%, easily beating the average annual return of 10.5%. The Democrats constantly claim that the top 10% of American only benefit from that, which is a lie since that ignores all the pension funds.
The Democrats argue that the Consumer Price Index, which stood at 3% in January, remains near the same level as of November – well above the Fed’s 2% target, which is unrealistic and arbitrary. What they fail to point out is that is a recession of depression, typically assets decline with inflation and cash becomes king. This is a warning sign that we are in the last leg of a Sovereign Debt Crisis globally.
The federal deficit for 2025 now stands at $1.8 trillion, with interest payments on the debt hitting $1 trillion for the first time. I have been warning for decades that when we are in this Ponzi Scheme of perpetual borrowing and NEVER paying off anything, that a 3-year-old with a pocket calculator can figure out that the interest expenditures will rise forcing spending on social programs and military to shrink. The Democrats would prefer to destroy the economy and constantly raise taxes just so they can win the next election and never once look at this from even a 5-year plan no less than 20-year outcome.
The economy has proven more resilient to tariffs and policy uncertainty than many predicted. The job market deterioration has been in the public sector as government employment is declining and they need to find a real productive job that contributes to GDP growth since government employment is no different from hiring a maid to clean your house. She does NOT add to your household income, she consumes it. That is why we call government employment “public service” for it reduces economic productivity; it does not contribute to it.
The Democrats are truly destroying the United States just as the socialists are destroying Europe. They refuse to face reality that every nation that has moved to the left fails. The Democrats refused to stand for even a statement of putting Americans before illegal aliens. Constitutionally, as well as internationally, only a citizen can vote. I cannot vote in UK elections even though I still have my English drivers license. The Democrats just have to oppose whatever Trump does no matter what. They claim that requiring an ID to vote will prevent 20 million poor and minorities from voting. They portray blacks are stupid.
Many see the Democrats as not just racist in these comments that African Americans are too stupid to have an ID so they cannot vote, but many are seeing that they are the source of White Supremacy. Gavin Newsom has just exposed how the Democrats think of African Americans as stupid. If someone is poor, they still need ID to get welfare and food stamps regardless of their race. You need ID to drive a car, get on a train, or hop on a plane. The implications of this opposition to ID to vote can only impact illegal aliens which the opened the flood gates to let them poor into the country to retain power. I have stated before,
I had the mandate to negotiate with Australia for Hong Kong to try to buy an island back in 1997 to allow them to flee when Hong Kong was to be handed back to China. I met with former Prime Minister Paul Keating who was running the Treasury at that time and no matter what I offered the answer was NO. I finally asked if this was a racist issue. He said no. If Australia allowed them to migrate from Hong Kong they were fleeing socialism so they would vote conservative and change the politics of Australia. That was the real objective of the Democrats and that is why they oppose an ID to vote to retain power.
Ilhan Omar was born in Mogadishu, Somalia, on October 4, 1982. She shouts at Trump during the State of the Union putting on a display that illustrates the cultural differences at issue. She does not like any curtailment of illegal immigration and the outrageous fraud of the Somali community in Minnesota. In a June 23 article, the Star-Tribune wrote that it “could neither conclusively confirm nor rebut the allegation that he is Omar’s sibling” that she married her brother. In 2002, Omar, then 19, religiously married Ahmed Hirsi, but not legally. Omar and Hirsi had two children, but in 2008, they obtained a religious divorce. The following year, in 2009, Omar married Ahmed Nur Said Elmi both religiously and legally. Little is known of Elmi.
According to the book Lyndon Johnson and the American Dream, Johnson said the following to Senator Richard Russell, a Democratic Senator from Georgia:
“These Negroes, they’re getting pretty uppity these days and that’s a problem for us since they’ve got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we’ve got to do something about this, we’ve got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference. For if we don’t move at all, then their allies will line up against us and there’ll be no way of stopping them, we’ll lose the filibuster and there’ll be no way of putting a brake on all sorts of wild legislation. It’ll be Reconstruction all over again.”
President Johnson, was a master of legislative politics, and was acutely aware of the enormous political risk he was taking with the Civil Rights Act. He made several comments on this issue.
“There goes the South for a generation.” This is the most commonly cited version, reportedly said to an aide as he signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 .
“We just delivered the South to the Republican Party for a long time to come.” This version was recounted by presidential aide Bill Moyers, who said Johnson was feeling “melancholy” right after the signing, fully aware of the political cost .
Johnson’s prediction was not just casual speculation; it was a calculated understanding of American politics at the time. Before 1964, the “Solid South” was a Democratic bastion, built on the legacy of the Civil War and Reconstruction . By championing civil rights, Johnson knew he would shatter this coalition.
Johnson’s prediction proved accurate almost instantly. In the 1964 election, although he won in a landslide, he lost five Deep South states (Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, and South Carolina) to the Republicans.
It was Barry Goldwater, who had voted against the Civil Rights Act, appealed to white Southerners who felt abandoned by the national Democratic Party.
LBJ demonstrates the manipulation of the African Americans making a series of well-documented, blunt statements predicting the exact political outcome of manipulating the blacks to support the Democrats which was the original slave owner party against Abraham Lincoln and the Republican Party that was anti-slavery.
What they have done with the African Americans they are now doing with illegal aliens.
Posted originally on Feb 25, 2026 by Martin Armstrong |
When the National Election Study first asked the question in 1958, about 73% of Americans said they trusted the federal government to do what is right most or all of the time. Today, that number has collapsed to roughly 17%, one of the lowest readings in nearly seven decades. This is not a partisan anomaly. It is a structural decline that began in the 1960s and 1970s during the Vietnam War, Watergate, and rising economic instability, and it has never fully recovered since.
Confidence is the foundation of every political and economic system. I have said countless times that inflation, currency crises, and civil unrest are not merely monetary events, but rather, they are confidence events. When trust in government falls, people begin to disengage from institutions, question policy legitimacy, and ultimately shift capital and allegiance away from public systems. Pew data shows rising frustration across both parties, with roughly half of Americans in each political camp describing themselves as frustrated with the federal government.
Even in recent years, only about two in ten Americans say they trust Washington to do what is right most or all of the time, while the majority say they trust it only some of the time or never. That is a profound psychological shift.
Trust tends to rise during external crises and collapse during prolonged domestic political conflict. After 9/11, trust temporarily rebounded, yet the long-term trend resumed downward following wars, financial crises, and political polarization. This cyclical behavior aligns perfectly with the broader Economic Confidence Model. Institutional trust peaks during periods of perceived unity and declines during fragmentation and fiscal stress.
Declining trust in government is one of the most reliable leading indicators of political restructuring. The late Roman Republic saw collapsing confidence in the Senate before the rise of authoritarian rule. The French monarchy lost legitimacy long before the financial crisis triggered the revolution. Confidence always breaks before structural change becomes visible.
When the National Election Study first asked the question in 1958, about 73% of Americans said they trusted the federal government to do what is right most or all of the time. Today, that figure has fallen to roughly 17%, placing confidence near the lowest levels in nearly seventy years. This is not a minor fluctuation tied to one administration. It is a structural decline that began in the 1960s amid war, political scandal, and economic volatility and has trended downward ever since.
Confidence is the real foundation of any political and economic system. Inflation, debt crises, and social unrest are confidence events. As trust in government deteriorates, the public disengages from institutions, questions policy, and shifts capital and behavior away from public systems they no longer believe are acting in their interest.
The data show that only a small minority of Americans now trust Washington to do what is right most of the time, while the overwhelming majority say they trust it only some of the time or never. That represents a profound psychological shift from the postwar era, when government was widely viewed as competent.
Looking forward to the 2032 ECM turning point, the trajectory of government confidence in the United States is unlikely to stage a sustained recovery. The Economic Confidence Model implies that we are in a phase of declining public-sector confidence and rising skepticism toward centralized authority into the late 2020s. That does not mean an immediate collapse, but rather continued volatility in trust, punctuated by brief rallies during crises followed by deeper erosion as fiscal pressures, political polarization, and institutional overreach intensify. As we approach 2032, the model suggests a further migration of confidence away from government and toward private assets, alternative systems, and localized structures of governance.
Europe is facing an existential crisis over Russia, and Kallas herself has repeatedly framed Moscow as the primary enemy whose very existence threatens the entire continent. That position has dominated EU policy for years, with enormous political, military, and financial capital already committed to Ukraine and the confrontation with Russia. In that light, her warning that “the region does not need a new war” if tensions with Iran escalate is less about humanitarian restraint and more about geopolitical prioritization.
Europe has been pouring funding, weapons, and political capital into the Ukrainian conflict, and the last thing Brussels wants is the United States shifting military attention to the Middle East. If Washington becomes consumed by Iran, the burden of confronting Russia shifts back onto Europe, which is economically and militarily unprepared to handle it alone. Europe has been scheming ways to defend itself without the US, but the truth of the matter is that US protection has been embedded in every defense mechanism since the end of World War II.
Kallas even acknowledged that Iran is currently in a weakened position and that this moment should be used for diplomacy rather than escalation. “We should really be using this time to find a diplomatic solution,” Kallas commented, yet, simultaneously refuses to acknowledge any possibility of peace negotiations between Russia and Ukraine.
EU Neocons do not want their top financier to stretch its finances and manpower. Worse, the EU certainly does not want to provide its own resources to assist its ally in combating a conflict in the Middle East.
The United Nations is now openly discussing “coordinated global action” to combat what it defines as disinformation and hate speech online, and this should not be dismissed as some abstract policy debate. This is a structural shift toward the internationalization of speech regulation, and that carries profound political and economic implications.
The UN’s recent digital governance initiatives, including its policy briefs tied to the Global Digital Compact, explicitly call for stronger international cooperation to address online misinformation, platform accountability, and content governance across borders. The stated objective is to create safer digital spaces and reduce harmful content, yet the mechanism being proposed is coordinated oversight at a global level.
An unelected international institution proposing frameworks that influence what information is acceptable raises concerns. The UN has no direct democratic mandate over the citizens of individual nations, yet its policy direction increasingly encourages governments and platforms to align with shared global standards for speech moderation and information control. This is being framed as a necessary response to misinformation, extremism, and social instability in the digital age. The globalists want to control our ability to access and process information.
The core issue is not whether misinformation exists. It always has. Every era has dealt with propaganda, rumors, and competing narratives. What is different now is the scale and the proposed solution of centralized digital oversight coordinated at the international level. Why should a select few determine fact from fiction? The power is unimaginable.
What one administration labels misinformation may later prove accurate, and what is defined as harmful speech can shift with political priorities. History is filled with examples where dissenting views were initially censored only to later become accepted truths in matters of war policy, economic forecasting, and public health.
The future regulatory battleground will not be limited to finance, taxation, or energy, but increasingly to information itself. In a digital economy, whoever influences the flow of information indirectly influences public confidence, political legitimacy, and even economic behavior. The real question is no longer whether misinformation exists. The structural question is who defines truth, who enforces that definition, and how far institutions are willing to go to maintain narrative authority in an era of declining global trust.
Posted originally on Feb 24, 2026 by Martin Armstrong |
They are now talking about fast-tracking a referendum on reopening EU accession talks in Iceland, possibly as early as this year, accelerating a timeline that was originally expected closer to 2027. The shift is being driven by geopolitical tensions, economic pressures, and a growing debate about adopting the euro versus keeping the krona.
What people constantly fail to understand is that the euro was never created as an economic project first. It was a political project. I have stated countless times that the euro was designed to bind Europe together politically after centuries of war, not because it made economic sense for diverse economies to share a single currency. You cannot unify Germany, Italy, Greece, and Spain under one monetary policy and expect stability. That violates the very foundation of capital flow dynamics and economic cycles. The euro removed national monetary sovereignty and handed it to a central bureaucracy in Brussels and Frankfurt that cannot respond to local economic conditions.
Now we see Iceland, a country of roughly 390,000 people, being pulled back into this same discussion. This is highly ironic when you look at the actual history. Iceland applied to join the EU in 2009 in the aftermath of the banking crisis but halted negotiations in 2013 after public opposition and concerns over sovereignty, fisheries, and monetary independence. It was a direct reflection of the fact that smaller, independent economies understand the danger of surrendering policy control to a centralized authority.
Iceland has one of the highest GDP per capita levels in the world, runs on abundant geothermal and renewable energy, and maintains its own currency precisely so it can adjust during crises. During the 2008 financial crisis, Iceland allowed its banking system to collapse, imposed capital controls, and let the krona devalue. Had Iceland been on the euro, it would have faced the same fate as Greece: austerity with no monetary escape.
Countries with independent currencies can devalue and recover. Countries inside the euro cannot. They are trapped in a fixed monetary regime regardless of domestic conditions. That is why southern Europe suffered prolonged stagnation while northern Europe dominated capital flows after the euro’s creation.
Iceland already participates in the EU single market through the EEA and Schengen without surrendering full sovereignty. In other words, they get trade access without monetary submission. Joining the EU and potentially adopting the euro would alter that balance. Reports suggest the timeline is being accelerated due to rising geopolitical tensions and closer EU engagement, which confirms my long-standing view that the EU expands more aggressively during periods of global uncertainty.
Now the EU faces declining industrial competitiveness, energy crises, and regulatory overreach. The idea that joining such a structure would somehow “stabilize” Iceland ignores the broader macro trend of capital flight away from highly regulated regions and into independent jurisdictions.
If Iceland joins the EU and eventually adopts the euro, it will be surrendering the very tool that allowed it to survive its worst crisis. That is the real economic issue. Small nations historically do better at retaining monetary sovereignty during global instability. The euro is rigid by design, and rigidity in a cyclical global economy is always dangerous. Sacrificing sovereignty for a political currency created for European unification rather than economic efficiency would be a profound long-term structural shift, not a simple trade decision.
Posted originally on Feb 24, 2026 by Martin Armstrong |
A new law signed by Putin grants the FSB the authority to order telecom operators to disconnect individuals from internet and mobile services. This long trajectory toward centralized digital control that has been unfolding for years, especially since the 2019 “sovereign internet” framework, which already laid the groundwork for isolating Russia’s domestic network from the global internet if necessary.
The legislation helps telecommunications providers to cut communications access upon the requirement of the FSB, while shielding those companies from any legal liability for outages. In practical terms, that means the state security apparatus can legally disconnect individuals or entire regions from the internet and mobile networks at will, under conditions defined by presidential regulation.
Governments historically move to control information flows first, long before they impose overt capital controls. I have warned repeatedly that the next phase of government intervention would not begin with seizing bank accounts outright, but with restricting the free flow of communication. The new law allows authorities to restrict connectivity without court oversight, which further centralizes power in the executive and security services. The bill evolved from vague “requests” to binding “requirements” from the FSB, meaning telecom providers are legally required to comply with shutdown orders across internet, mobile, calls, and messaging services.
They justify this as counter-terrorism and defense against security threats, including drone warfare and cyber risks, yet historically such language has always been used to expand state surveillance powers. Russianauthorities have already blocked major platforms, restricted messaging services, and pushed citizens toward state-monitored applications, all under the banner of national security and technological sovereignty.
Digital shutdowns increase systemic risk in modern economies that rely on online banking, digital payments, logistics, and real-time financial transactions. Even temporary internet disruptions can trigger spikes in cash withdrawals and anxiety over digital isolation, which is a classic sign of declining institutional trust.
The Soviet Union restricted communication channels, China built the Great Firewall, and now Russia is formalizing a legal framework to disconnect individuals digitally. By granting the FSB authority to disconnect communications nationwide or individually, the state effectively gains a “kill switch” over the digital economy. That extends beyond politics into commerce, finance, and even emergency infrastructure. Control the communication networks, and you control the flow of capital, opinion, and resistance. That has always been the unspoken objective behind expanding surveillance laws, regardless of the political system implementing them.
Posted originally on Feb 24, 2026 by Martin Armstrong |
The latest calls inside the European Union to change its own voting rules to neutralize Hungary’s veto power display the bloc’s clear move toward complete centralized control. Lithuania’s foreign minister openly argued that the EU must overhaul its system after Hungary blocked key decisions on Ukraine, claiming action is needed to stop what he called Hungary’s “abuse of veto” in blocking major policies.
According to the report, Hungary has blocked a €90 billion EU loan to Ukraine and a new sanctions package, prompting frustration among EU officials who expected to demonstrate unity and resolve. The Lithuanian foreign minister admitted this exploitation of unanimity happens “so many times” and suggested reviewing the decision-making process or even reducing the powers of a member state. That statement alone reveals the deeper political shift underway inside Europe.
“Until Ukraine resumes oil transit to Hungary and Slovakia via the Druzhba pipeline, we will not allow decisions important to Kyiv to move forward,” said Hungarian Foreign Minister Péter Szijjártó.
“We were expecting that everything was already prepared for the fourth anniversary and we will be ready to deliver new sanctions package, and also the €90 billion loan to Ukraine”, Lithuanian Foreign Minister Kęstutis Budrys told Euronews’ Europe Today show. “Europe is solid, Europe is resolved and we can deliver”, Hungary’s obstruction “is really frustrating”, Budrys said.
This is precisely the structural flaw that was built into the European Union from the beginning. The EU was never a true federation, yet it increasingly behaves like one. It pretends to be a union of sovereign states while steadily concentrating decision-making power in Brussels. Now, when one member state exercises its legal right under the unanimity principle, the response is to silent dissent.
They are now openly discussing moving toward qualified majority voting in foreign policy, which would effectively remove the sovereign veto of individual nations. A qualified majority would allow 15 of 27 states representing 65% of the population to override dissenting members. This is not a minor procedural tweak. That is a fundamental transformation of the EU from a cooperative alliance into a centralized political structure.
What is even more revealing is the suggestion that Hungary’s voting rights could be curtailed under Article 7 mechanisms if it continues to block policies. In other words, if a member state does not align politically, the solution being floated is to reduce its influence within the “union” or “sovereign” nations.
The EU is neither a union nor sovereign. Each emergency from debt, migration, war, or sanctions becomes the justification for deeper centralization. Now the argument is that one dissenting nation could spell the “end for the EU as a geopolitical actor in the future.”
Europe is increasingly divided between centralized policy ambitions in Brussels and national sovereignty concerns among member states. Hungary is not the root problem. It is the symptom a failed union of nations with fundamentally different economic interests, energy dependencies, and geopolitical priorities being forced under a single foreign policy framework. The real risk is not one veto. The real risk is institutional overreach in response to dissent.
Posted originally on Feb 24, 2026 by Martin Armstrong |
There is a deep division within the Trump Administration with a pro war and anti-war groups. The anti-war group are VP Vance and Tulsi Gabbard. The pro war group are Marco Rubio, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and theemdless war moner Senator Lindsey Graham. Both Israel and the Neocons are consistently pushing for US action, viewing the current moment as an opportunity to deal a decisive blow to Iran to end the Islamic Republic. White House Press Secretary (Karoline Leavitt) stated publicly that “there are many arguments one can make in favor of a strike against Iran.”
The current Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Dan Caine, has clearly and repeatedly cautioned President Trump about the significant risks associated with potential military action against Iran. Recent reports from multiple news outlets detail his private warnings to the President and other top officials. While they lacked approval power to go to war, what was the Joint Chiefs’ do provide private advice regarding the invasion. Scholarly analysis indicates that most senior military officers, including those on the Joint Chiefs, had significant reservations about using force in Iraq. Their primary worry was that an invasion would result in a costly and open-ended commitment for the United States
President Trump took the significant step of replacing the top military leadership, including the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, shortly after taking office in 2025. This was part of a broader and unprecedented shakeup of the Pentagon’s senior ranks. The most prominent change was the replacement of the sitting Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
The changes extended well beyond the Joint Chiefs. The dismissals were part of a “rare and major shakeup” that began shortly after the new administration took office not unlike we are seeing in China. Critics argued that the firings were part of an effort to ensure the military is led by individuals loyal to the president rather than being solely focused on their duty to the Constitution.
Them Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, a key figure in the overhaul, had previously criticized former General Brown and Admiral Franchetti, questioning whether their promotions were tied to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. He stated the goal was to install new leadership focused on the military’s core mission of “deterring, fighting and winning wars.”
The new Chairman, General Caine, was a retired three-star general whose nomination required a waiver. By law, the Chairman is typically required to have previously served as a four-star general in a role like a service chief or combatant commander. Because Caine retired as a three-star lieutenant general, President Trump had to sign a national interest waiver, allowed under Title 10 of the U.S. Code, for him to be eligible for the position. He was then promoted to four-star general upon his return to active duty
Last year, Rubio has characterized Iran’s leadership as being at its “weakest point in decades,” citing economic collapse and public protests. However, he also warned of Iran’s military capabilities, noting they have amassed “thousands and thousands” of long-range ballistic missiles.
In June 2025, following U.S. strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities (referred to as “Operation Midnight Hammer“), Rubio defended the action in a television interview. When pressed on the intelligence behind the strike, he dismissed the question as “irrelevant,” arguing that Iran had all the necessary components to build a weapon, including 60% enriched uranium.
During a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing in January 2026, Rubio stated that the U.S. must have a force posture in the Middle East that could, “if necessary, preemptively preventthe attack against thousands of American servicemen and other facilities in the region and our allies.” He explicitly noted that “The President always reserves the preemptive defensive option.“
REGIME CHANGE:
When questioned by Senator John Cornyn about what would happen if Iran’s Supreme Leader were removed, Rubio admitted, “I don’t think anyone can give you a simple answer,” describing the situation as “far more complex” than other recent geopolitical events and something that would require “a lot of careful thinking“
This is the same problem that surfaced from the Iraq War. They never consider anything beyond what is in front of their nose. They removed Saddam and NEVER considered that (1) he kept the crazies in check so we got ISIS, and (2) he was the #1 enemy of Iran. Removing him was to the benefit of Iran.
Removing the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei with such a huge military, will most likely lead to some military general and they are cut from the same religious cloth so there is by no means a guarantee that this will change anything.
A PROXY WAR AGAINST THE USA?:
Britain, NATO, EU and the American Neocons have used Ukraine as a proxy war to weaken Russia for the EU thinks it can conquer Russia, get the $75 trillion in assets. That’s why the head of NATOcame out and warned these EU leaders if they think that they can defeat Russia without the USA, they are dreaming.
Flights from China and Russia have been arriving in Iran regularly. It is believed that China has not only provided access to their satelites for targeting, but they may have provided their YLC8B Radar system to detect stealth fighter jets and bombers. China’s YLC-8B Radar Transfer to Iran Could Rewrite Middle East Airpower and End Stealth Dominance. The reported deployment of China’s long-range YLC-8B anti-stealth radar in Iran signals a strategic shift in Middle Eastern air defense architecture, directly challenging U.S. and Israeli reliance on fifth-generation stealth aircraft and reshaping regional deterrence dynamics.
This escalation in Beijing’s military-technical support to Tehran, is very significant for this can track stealth fifth-generation aircraft at long range, and appears to have been deployed since the bunker busting of 2025. This is fundamentally reshaping regional airpower assumptions in the Middle East and provides the theatre for China to test its advanced weapons using Iran just as we have used Ukraine against Russia.
This risk here is that with advanced targeting from China, Iran has increased its chances to at least damage an aircraft carrier rendering it inoperable. This can become a proxy war to weaken the United States just as Ukraine has been used to weaken Russia.
A mentioned, then there is this “nuclear ambiguity” where Iran could have nuclear capability just as the early-stage development of countries like Israel or Pakistan during their initial programs where there were no public tests hiding their development. The US has been claiming Iran is close and that was their view in 2007 as then expected they would achieve that by 2009 as John McCain said that in this interview.
Attacking Iran may be the worst idea ever. This is the FISRT adversary with formidable defense capability unlike Iraq, Afghanistan, or Venezuela.
I have created this site to help people have fun in the kitchen. I write about enjoying life both in and out of my kitchen. Life is short! Make the most of it and enjoy!
This is a library of News Events not reported by the Main Stream Media documenting & connecting the dots on How the Obama Marxist Liberal agenda is destroying America
Centinel2012 