Turkey’s parliament is about to look at a draft maritime law that does something cute. Twelve nautical miles of territorial waters in the Black Sea and the Mediterranean. Six in the Aegean. The exact same Turkey, on the exact same coastline, asking for two different rules depending on which body of water it’s looking at. That’s the policy.

If Ankara extended to twelve in the Aegean, the sea becomes a Turkish lake. If Athens extended to twelve in the Aegean (which is its legal right under UNCLOS), the sea becomes a Greek lake, and Turkey, back in 1995, declared that would be cause for war. So everyone sits at six and pretends the matter is unresolved, because the matter being unresolved is what lets Turkey keep doing things in waters Greece considers Greek.

This is the table the Greek shipping minister, Vasilis Kikilias, sat down at on Friday in Athens, across from the EU’s fisheries commissioner Costas Kadis, asking Brussels to step in over what he called unlawful fishing, the non-respect of the law of the sea, and the disputing of our sovereign rights. He very deliberately did not name the waters. Naming the waters would have meant pinning down where Greek sovereignty starts and stops, and that’s exactly the question Athens has refused to answer in public for thirty years.

A day before that meeting, fishermen from Kalymnos said a Turkish coast guard boat trained a gun on them near Imia and told them to clear out. Imia is the rocks that almost touched off a war between two NATO allies in 1996. A gun pointed at a fishing boat there isn’t a random incident. It’s an argument continued by other means.

And then there’s EFES-2026, the giant Turkish exercise running until May 21, staged right across from Samos. Live fire, fifty countries watching. Coincidentally happening at the same moment Ankara is rolling out a maritime bill to codify its Aegean claims. Coincidences in this neighborhood tend to be choreographed.

Why Kadis, of all people?

Because Kadis is Cypriot. He grew up watching Turkish ships block Cypriot gas drilling. He doesn’t need a briefing on the pattern. Asking him to weigh in on Aegean fishing is asking him to weigh in on a dispute he already knows in his bones, just shifted a few hundred miles north.

And because the EU is the only address Greece can write to that has both a legal vocabulary big enough (UNCLOS, the Common Fisheries Policy) and an operational apparatus (the European Fisheries Control Agency, satellites, joint patrols) to turn Turkish behavior in the Aegean into a European problem rather than a Greek one. Brussels can’t send a frigate. Brussels can put something on paper. On paper is where this fight actually lives.

That’s the whole game. Fish are an alibi. The real contest is over who gets to define the legal frame inside which fish, gas, migration routes, undersea cables and shipping lanes eventually get carved up. Turkey is busy building that frame in domestic statute right now. Greece is trying to get the EU to build a counter-frame before Turkey’s hardens.

The bilateral track, on paper, is fine. Mitsotakis flew to Ankara in February for the sixth high-level cooperation council, signed half a dozen MoUs, said warm things. Three months later their fishermen are pointing radios and weapons at each other and their ministers are calling Brussels. That isn’t a system breaking down. That’s the system working as intended: warm at the top, hot at the bottom, ambiguity preserved.

There’s also a quiet asymmetry nobody really talks about. Greece is in UNCLOS. Turkey isn’t. Which means every time Greek diplomats invoke the convention, Turkish diplomats can shrug and say that’s your language, not ours. The Turkish draft bill is literally writing a new language and daring Brussels to engage with it as if it were legitimate.

So what’s worth watching?

Whether the Commission says anything in writing, even something boring, that calls Turkish conduct in the Aegean a fisheries issue. Whether the Turkish maritime bill clears parliament before summer recess. Whether EFES wraps clean on May 21 or with another nasty moment around the islets. And whether Kikilias, next time he speaks, actually names the waters.

If he names them, Athens thinks the multilateral play is working. If he keeps it vague, Athens has gone back to the strategic fog that has, technically, kept the peace for thirty years.

The fishermen of Kalymnos didn’t get a vote in any of this. They’ll go back out when the weather and the gunboats let them.

References:

Turkey’s Maritime Strategy Heightens the Risk of a New Eastern Mediterranean Crisis

Divide fourteen trillion by five hundred fifty-four billion. The answer, roughly twenty-five, is the working leverage ratio of American monetary power in May 2026.

Every dollar of crisis liquidity the Federal Reserve extended through central bank swap lines at the worst week of the 2008 collapse underwrites about twenty-five dollars of liabilities sitting on bank balance sheets outside the United States today. This is the actual dollar empire. Not the petrodollar arrangement now visibly falling apart in the Strait of Hormuz, not the Treasury auctions that foreign reserve managers attend with declining enthusiasm, not the carrier groups that spent April failing to keep oil flowing out of the Gulf. Not a treaty. Not a vote. Not even a named doctrine. A discretionary backstop, never voted on by Congress, never written into any treaty, never even named in a Fed press release until the morning it gets activated.

Roughly forty per cent of all dollars in existence are created outside the United States, on the ledgers of banks the Federal Reserve does not regulate. The Bank for International Settlements puts the offshore stock at approximately $14tn in liabilities, against $19tn held by the Fed and US commercial banks combined. No other currency comes within an order of magnitude.

Most of the obituaries written for dollar dominance miss this entirely.

When the IMF published its first quarter 2026 COFER data showing dollar reserves at central banks slipping below fifty-seven per cent, the usual think pieces followed. Riyadh diversifying. Delhi diversifying. Moscow gone. Beijing inching upward in renminbi-denominated swap agreements with countries that need cheap commodities and cannot afford diplomatic enemies. The conclusion writes itself, and it is wrong, or at least wrong in the only sense that matters operationally. Work by the New York Fed has already shown that the aggregate reserve decline is driven mostly by idiosyncratic exits rather than systemic flight.

Reserves are sovereign decisions, and sovereign decisions in 2026 are increasingly hostile to Washington. None of that touches the eurodollar pool, because the eurodollar pool is not a sovereign decision. It is a million private decisions made by treasurers in Frankfurt and Singapore and São Paulo who need to fund a six-month invoice and find dollar credit cheaper, deeper, and more liquid than anything available in euros or renminbi. They are not voting for America. They are voting against currency risk. The dollar happens to be on the other end of the trade.

Because those private decisions compound, the offshore pool grows.

Because the pool grows, the Federal Reserve’s implicit obligation to it grows in tandem, even though nobody at the Marriner S. Eccles Building has ever signed a document saying so. This is the part of dollar dominance that almost nobody outside a small circle of monetary economists understands, and it is the only part that actually matters in a year when the petrodollar arrangement is openly disintegrating.

The 2008 swap line extension to the European Central Bank, the Bank of Japan, the Swiss National Bank, and a small group of trusted peers peaked at $554bn within weeks of the Lehman collapse. In March 2020 the figure hit $358bn within days of the pandemic shock. Both interventions are now studied in graduate seminars as triumphs of central bank coordination. Neither was authorized by Congress. Neither involved a vote of any kind by any elected body in any country. Neither came with a published rulebook explaining when the Fed will extend dollars to a foreign counterparty and when it will not.

A standing line of credit from the Federal Reserve to its closest peers, available in effectively unlimited quantity during a crisis, was the load-bearing wall of the global financial system in two of the worst weeks of the past twenty years, and ninety-nine per cent of civilians who use dollar-denominated services every day cannot tell you it exists. The mechanism is the empire. The empire was built by accident, by bankers in the City of London in the 1950s running a remarkable conspiracy of silence, and then quietly endorsed in Washington once it was too large to dismantle. Nobody currently alive at the Federal Reserve was around when the structure took shape, and nobody currently in the Treasury knows how to undo it without producing a banking crisis large enough to swallow the administration that ordered the undoing.

Walk this forward into the calendar of 2026.

The Trump administration is at month seven of an escalating military confrontation with Iran. The Strait of Hormuz has been intermittently closed. Iranian oil moves to Chinese refineries priced in renminbi. Indian state refiners are now settling Iranian barrels through ICICI Bank in yuan, according to Reuters reporting on April 17th. The toll for tankers permitted through the strait was, for at least part of April, denominated in bitcoin. Oil production has dropped in Saudi Arabia and collapsed across Kuwait, Iraq, and the UAE. The petrodollar arrangement that Henry Kissinger sketched into being in the mid-1970s is, by any honest reading of the tape, no longer operative.

The eurodollar arrangement is not the petrodollar arrangement. It has nothing to do with Iran. It has very little to do with Saudi Arabia. It depends on whether, in a crisis, the Federal Reserve still picks up the phone.

After the Treasury imposed a fresh round of secondary sanctions on regional Chinese banks handling Iranian oil receivables, the question of what the Fed would do in a liquidity event involving those institutions moved from academic to operational. The Bank for International Settlements estimates the Chinese banking system holds well over a trillion dollars in offshore dollar liabilities. If a mid-sized Chinese bank suddenly cannot find dollar funding because the New York correspondent network has been instructed by the Treasury to step back, the Fed has a choice. It can extend a swap line to the People’s Bank of China, which does not currently exist. It can lean on the ECB or BoJ to recycle dollars into the gap, which is the same thing routed through one additional counterparty. Or it can decline, watch the bank fail, and let the contagion ripple back through European and Japanese balance sheets that hold the other side of those liabilities.

When the BIS asks the Federal Reserve under what conditions a swap line would be extended to a non-traditional counterparty, the Fed declines to answer in writing. There is no public protocol. There is the discretion of whoever happens to be Fed chair, vice chair for supervision, and the New York Fed president on the morning the call comes in. Three people, two of whom were not confirmed by the Senate to make geopolitical decisions, choosing on roughly an hour’s notice whether to backstop or abandon a meaningful share of the world’s banking system.

Aditi Sahasrabuddhe at Brown University has spent three years documenting the swap line network. Her working paper, circulated through SSRN and updated this winter, makes a quiet but devastating observation. The People’s Bank of China has signed swap agreements with forty countries since 2008. Those agreements have never been tested in a real crisis. The Fed’s lines, by contrast, have been activated twice with full capacity, in 2008 and 2020. The asymmetry has nothing to do with the diplomatic skill of the central bankers involved. When the call goes to Beijing, the country on the other end has to weigh whether the renminbi liquidity is worth whatever security concession the Politburo will eventually request. When the call has gone to Washington for the past twenty years, the answer has been yes, with no conditions, no questionnaire, no follow-up.

If that answer becomes conditional, the eurodollar system stops being free, and once it stops being free it stops being a system. It becomes a series of bilateral favors.

What sits firm on the calendar is the next FOMC meeting beginning June 16th and the Jackson Hole symposium in late August. Neither will mention swap lines. The Fed never does, in normal weather. Both will be parsed for hints about rate paths and balance sheet runoff and the new chair’s policy framework. Almost no one in the room will ask the question that actually matters in May 2026: whether the unwritten promise that has held up forty per cent of the world’s dollars for half a century still holds under an administration that has weaponized every other instrument of American financial power it could find.

The petrodollar arrangement is dying in public, on television, in tanker manifests denominated in bitcoin and yuan. The eurodollar arrangement is something else entirely. It will not die in public.

It will die, if it dies, in a single bad weekend when the Federal Reserve hesitates for forty-eight hours longer than it should, and treasurers in Singapore and Frankfurt and São Paulo all realize at once that they were funding their balance sheets on a courtesy that was withdrawn while they were sleeping.

June 16th. Mark the date.

References:

The Limits of Financial Statecraft: China’s Bilateral Swap Agreements and the External Security Environment

Thinking Locally, Acting Globally: The Domestic Legitimacy of the US Federal Reserve as a Global Governor

Statistical Release: Global Liquidity Indicators at end-Q3 2025

A coral outcrop eight square miles wide sits twenty miles off Iran’s mainland coast in the Persian Gulf, and at 0300 local time on Tuesday, April 7, the sky above it lit up again. Fifty-plus strikes. $117-a-barrel crude ticking upward on screens from Singapore to London before most traders had finished their coffee. The second wave of American bombs to hit Kharg Island in less than a month, and the Pentagon offered almost nothing by way of explanation.

Kharg Island handles roughly 90 percent of Iran’s crude oil exports. Storage tanks, pipelines, offshore loading terminals packed onto a sliver of land one-third the size of Manhattan, all of it guarded by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, which restricts who sets foot on the island and when. The military bunkers and air defense systems the US hit overnight sit within spitting distance of that infrastructure. CENTCOM says the oil was spared. Again.

Vice President JD Vance went on camera Tuesday morning and said the strikes did not represent a change in strategy. We were going to strike some military targets on Kharg Island, and I believe we have done so, he told reporters, his tone calibrated to suggest that dropping ordnance on a sovereign nation’s most economically critical territory was roughly as noteworthy as a schedule update.

We’re not going to strike energy and infrastructure targets until the Iranians either make a proposal that we can get behind or don’t make a proposal.

That sentence carries weight measured in millions of barrels per day. Analysts at Kpler and the Council on Foreign Relations have estimated that destroying Kharg’s export terminals could remove 1.5 to 2 million barrels of crude from global supply, roughly 3 to 4 percent of seaborne trade. Brent crude already trades above $110. Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan published notes in March warning of $150-plus oil if those terminals burn. The International Energy Agency has called the broader disruption from the Strait of Hormuz closure the largest supply event in the history of the global oil market.

So the terminals stand. For now. The 8 p.m. Eastern deadline President Trump set for Iran to reopen the Strait of Hormuz arrives in hours, and nobody in Washington or Tehran appears certain what happens when that clock runs out.

On March 13, American aircraft hit more than 90 military targets on Kharg Island. Trump posted on social media that the attack had obliterated every military target but that he chose not to wipe out the oil infrastructure. Three and a half weeks later, the US struck again, hitting sites that had already been targeted. Bunkers that were bombed. Air defenses that were bombed again. The same island, the same category of targets, the same careful avoidance of the pipelines and tank farms that would turn a military operation into an economic catastrophe.

This repetition reads less like escalation than rehearsal. Each sortie maps the distance between what the US is willing to destroy and what it is holding in reserve as leverage. The oil stays untouched not because it is off-limits but because it is useful as a threat.

Tehran rejected the latest ceasefire proposal on Sunday, calling instead for a permanent end to hostilities, lifting of sanctions, and a ten-clause framework that Washington dismissed as insufficient. Trump responded with a profanity-laced social media post demanding Iran open the Strait. On Monday, Axios reported a glimmer of progress in back-channel talks centered on a potential 45-day ceasefire and confidence-building measures around Hormuz. Whether that glimmer survives the next twelve hours is the only question that matters in energy markets right now.

Gasoline in the United States averaged $4.14 a gallon on Tuesday morning. Diesel sat at $5.64, inching toward its 2022 record. US crude has doubled in price since January. Asian economies, China above all, face the sharpest exposure; their refineries depend on Gulf crude shipped through the very chokepoint Iran sealed weeks ago after the IRGC broadcast VHF warnings that no vessel would be permitted to pass.

Twenty-one confirmed attacks on merchant ships since March 12. An F-15 shot down over Iranian territory on Day 37 of the conflict, its crew member rescued by US forces. Bridges and railroads struck across Iran by Israel. The conflict that began with surprise airstrikes on February 28, killing Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and sparking the largest regional war in decades, has settled into a grinding pattern of escalation, deadline, near-miss, and escalation again.

Kharg Island sits at the center of that pattern. Not because of what has been destroyed there, but because of what has not been destroyed yet.

Eight p.m. Eastern, April 7, 2026. After that, the calendar goes dark.

References:

Kharg Island: Iran’s Oil Lifeline and a Tempting U.S. Target

IEA Oil Market Report, March 2026

The global oil supply took a hit on February 28th and hasn’t recovered. Brent crude blew past $126. Fertilizer markets panicked. Those numbers tell a sharper story about NATO falling apart than anything Trump has screamed into his phone.

Trump wants Europe to help police the Strait of Hormuz. Europe said no. Spain shut its bases. Italy blocked American bombers from Sicily. Britain technically allowed basing rights, then wrapped them in so many conditions it barely counts. France sent a carrier to defend Cyprus but wouldn’t let American planes fly over its territory. Trump, predictably, lost it. COWARDS, and we will REMEMBER! he posted on March 20th. Rubio, once the Senate’s most reliable NATO defender, called the alliance a one-way street and promised a reckoning.

Suez cracked the alliance in 1956. Vietnam strained it. Iraq nearly killed it. Non-European wars have always done this to a treaty built for the North Atlantic. But something about this one feels terminal.

In 2023, Senator Rubio co-sponsored legislation with Tim Kaine requiring a two-thirds Senate vote before any president could pull out of NATO. It passed 87 to 13. Got folded into the defense authorization act. Secretary of State Rubio now talks about that law like it was written by a stranger, someone naive, someone who hadn’t yet done the math on defending allies who won’t pick up the phone. Between the senator who built the guardrail and the secretary trying to rip it out, there’s no intellectual journey. There’s just the gravity of a president who treats loyalty like a commodity with a spot price, repriced daily.

The real split, underneath all the noise, isn’t hawks versus doves. It’s between countries that spent the last decade preparing for America to leave and countries that assumed it never would. Poland bought weapons like Washington had one foot out the door. The Baltics did the same. Spain, Italy, Belgium kept writing checks based on the old assumption. Both bets are being called at the same time now, and only one side has the inventory to cover.

Pedro Sanchez calls the Iran campaign unjustifiable. That’s a moral position. It does not produce destroyer escorts.

Britain convened a call with about 40 countries on April 2nd to talk about reopening the strait. America wasn’t on the line. France wants to lead any escort mission, cut America out, bring in India, maybe China. Britain thinks that without American firepower up front, Iran will keep threatening ships. Trump says Europeans should take the lead, and America will be helpful, a phrase so hollow it could describe bringing napkins to a barbecue. Macron, in Seoul, called a forcible reopening unrealistic without a ceasefire first. Military planners from some unspecified group of countries are supposed to meet next week to discuss options that don’t exist yet for a mission nobody’s agreed to pay for.

Here’s the part that should genuinely alarm people. Iran has started floating the idea of a toll on ships passing through the strait. Not a blockade. A fee. If Tehran can monetize the chokepoint instead of just closing it, the whole thing transforms from a wartime tactic into a permanent shakedown, one that survives any ceasefire. Nobody on that 40-country call seems to have a plan for that.

Kurt Volker, former ambassador to NATO, calls European defiance foolish. And on paper, sure. Denying basing rights to the superpower that underwrites your security is incoherent. But the paper leaves out a variable: voters. Electorates in Madrid, Rome, and London didn’t sign up for a war in Iran and won’t tolerate their governments helping run one. Starmer’s line, this is not our war, isn’t courage. It’s a survival calculation from a PM whose majority depends on people who think the whole campaign is illegitimate. Trump fired back that Starmer is no Winston Churchill. He’s right about that, though probably not in the way he intended.

Mark Rutte lands in Washington on April 8th. The NATO secretary-general, the man who once called Trump daddy in a moment of diplomatic self-abasement that still makes the rounds in European foreign ministries like a low-grade embarrassment, will sit across from a president who claimed on April 1st the war could wrap up within weeks. Three months after that meeting, NATO leaders are supposed to gather in Ankara on July 7th. If the weeks between produce no escort mission, no ceasefire, no reopened strait, and no shift in Trump’s contempt, the Ankara summit becomes either a funeral or a founding. July 7th settles which.

References:

Time: Trump Threatens to Pull U.S. Out of NATO

Economist: European allies are losing hope of keeping America in NATO

France, Russia, and China blocked military action on the strait. Trump can’t pick a position. And the world’s most important chokepoint is still shut.

On April 1, Donald Trump posted that the United States could easily OPEN THE HORMUZ STRAIT, TAKE THE OIL, & MAKE A FORTUNE. Two days earlier, his own White House said reopening the strait wasn’t vital to ending the Iran war. Then on April 2, he told the countries that actually need the strait to build up some delayed courage, go to the Strait, and just TAKE IT.

Three positions. Four days. Nobody blinked.

Bahrain spent weeks trying to push a Security Council resolution through. Four drafts. The original language authorized all necessary means to reopen Hormuz. By the fourth version that got sanded down to defensive means necessary and commensurate with the circumstances. Even that was too much. France, Russia, and China killed it on Thursday by breaking a silence procedure designed to skip the debate entirely.

The vote slipped to Saturday. A UN holiday got in the way. You can’t make this up.

Tehran sealed the strait on February 28. Since then, a handful of tankers have been allowed through at Iran’s discretion. Not freedom of navigation. A toll booth. And Iran has made clear it intends to keep running it even after the shooting stops.

The global response to all this has been, to put it generously, a group project where nobody read the assignment.

The UAE told the Wall Street Journal it was ready to help the US force the strait open. Hours later, officials walked it back, calling the report misleading and insisting Abu Dhabi was in a defensive posture. This after one UAE official had already floated the idea of occupying Iranian-held islands in the strait. Defensive posture is doing a lot of heavy lifting in Abu Dhabi right now.

Macron, from Seoul, called any military reopening unrealistic. Iranian ballistic missiles, indefinite timeline, too many risks. Then he turned around and accused Trump of contradicting himself on the war, which, fair. Paris wants to talk to Tehran. Build a coalition around diplomacy. The same Tehran that three other Security Council members want authorization to shoot at.

Ukraine showed up too. Foreign Minister Sybiha joined a 40-country call and pitched Kyiv’s naval drone expertise, the stuff that broke Russia’s Black Sea blockade. A country fighting for its own survival auditioned for a second maritime crisis on a different continent. That’s either admirably scrappy or deeply bleak, depending on the angle.

Britain, meanwhile, started assembling a coalition of 35 nations to restore shipping through Hormuz after hostilities end. Not during. After. Planning the cleanup while the house is still on fire.

So here’s where things stand. The Security Council can’t agree on a single word. The president who kicked off this war swings between saying the strait doesn’t matter and threatening to seize it. France says force won’t work. The UAE says it supports force, but only with partners, under international law, through mechanisms those partners can’t agree on. Ukraine offers drones. Britain plans for later.

And the country that imports more oil through Hormuz than anyone else on earth, China, just voted against reopening it. Beijing’s logic isn’t mysterious. Any resolution authorizing force near Iran creates a precedent that could boomerang to waterways much closer to Chinese interests. Russia has its own reasons for keeping Tehran happy. France just did the math on Iranian missile stocks and didn’t like the answer.

Every veto makes sense on its own. Together they make no sense at all.

Guterres warned this week that the region is nearing a breaking point. The Security Council heard that, then spent two days arguing about whether defensive is an acceptable synonym for all necessary.

Bahrain’s watered-down resolution probably comes to a vote Saturday. If it passes, it authorizes something muscular enough to deploy ships and vague enough to prevent them from doing anything useful. If it fails, Hormuz stays shut, oil keeps climbing toward numbers that Wall Street is already quietly modeling, and fertilizer shortages start turning into food crises by summer.

Who, exactly, is the Security Council protecting here? And from what?

Congress just handed NASA $24.4 billion for fiscal year 2026. This after the White House tried to slash the agency by 24 percent. The gap between what was requested and what legislators actually appropriated was the largest since 1987.

This happened during a soft economy. Tariff-driven recession odds hovering around coin-flip territory. GDP contracting in Q1. Nearly 4,000 NASA employees walking out the door through buyout programs.

And yet: the money stayed. The people left.

That right there is the tell.

Because if you pull back far enough, American space exploration has never really been about space. It has been about paychecks, congressional districts, and the particular alchemy of turning rocket fuel into political survival.

January 5, 1972. Nixon, neck-deep in a recession, facing reelection, staring at an aerospace sector bleeding out across California and Texas, greenlit the Space Shuttle. He had already killed the space station proposal, the Mars mission, the nuclear rocket. All too expensive. The Shuttle survived because someone built a spreadsheet proving reusability would save money. The economics were fiction. The political math was perfect. Swing-state aerospace workers needed jobs. A reusable spacecraft promised those jobs forever.

The Shuttle’s approval had almost nothing to do with exploration.

It had everything to do with the unemployment rate in Orange County. Nixon needed Southern California in November. NASA needed a program that could survive Nixon. So the Shuttle became an economic argument dressed in a flight suit. Projected cost: $5 billion over five years. Actual lifetime cost: north of $200 billion. Nobody was supposed to audit the projections. The point was never accuracy. The point was that a cost-benefit analysis existed, something to wave at a budget committee to buy another decade of contracts.

Apollo ran on different fuel but the combustion chemistry was identical. Sputnik scared Congress into writing checks that peaked at 4.41 percent of the federal budget in 1966. The stated reason was national security. The unstated reason was that routing billions through contractors in Alabama, Florida, Texas, and California created an employment machine no politician could dismantle without losing seats. By the time Armstrong stepped onto the Moon, the program had already served its deeper purpose. NASA’s own 1971 study calculated a 33 percent return on civilian space R&D. Exploration was the label. Industrial policy was the product.

Now look at 2025 and 2026 through that lens.

The administration proposed gutting NASA’s science budget by 47 percent, killing the Lunar Gateway, retiring the Space Launch System after Artemis III. Congress responded with the loudest bipartisan rejection in a generation. Restored nearly everything. Gateway got $1.1 billion. SLS production got $4.1 billion through Artemis IV and V.

Why? Because SLS components are manufactured across dozens of states. Orion’s heat shield lives in one district, its service module in another, Gateway contracts feeding a third. The Artemis supply chain is a jobs program mapped onto the geography of political power. Legislators protect jobs programs like territorial animals protect dens.

And here is where it gets genuinely strange. The White House wanted to cut roughly 5,500 positions. Congress kept the budget but let the buyouts proceed anyway. About 4,000 employees left. A 20 percent headcount reduction. The agency shrank. The money held. Contractors, not civil servants, are the constituency that matters.

On April 1, Artemis II finally launched from Kennedy Space Center. First crewed mission beyond low Earth orbit since 1972. Delayed from its original 2024 target by hydrogen leaks, helium problems, the usual cascade of setbacks that pile up when schedules are set by politicians and met by engineers. Meanwhile, NASA quietly restructured the whole program. Artemis III, once the triumphant landing mission, became an orbital test. The actual Moon landing slipped to Artemis IV. Targeted for 2028. The goalposts moved. The budget held firm.

SpaceX now sits at the center of all of this, holding the Starship lander contract while prepping what could be the largest IPO in history. Potentially valued above a trillion dollars. Mid-2026. The private space economy hit $630 billion last year. Musk’s company has cut launch costs by up to 90 percent compared to expendable rockets. The old model, where NASA spent public money to build rockets in useful congressional districts, is crashing headlong into a new model where NASA just buys rides from private companies.

Congress funded both models in 2026. Government rocket and commercial rocket. Redundancy is expensive. Redundancy with political utility is permanent.

China plans to land astronauts on the Moon by 2030. That deadline works exactly the way Sputnik did in 1957: a threat that converts into appropriations. The space race has always been an economic argument wearing a geopolitical costume, and the costume fits better when a rival is closing the gap.

When SpaceX goes public later this year, its valuation may exceed NASA’s entire cumulative spending since 1958, inflation-adjusted. All of it. A single private company worth more than everything the federal government has ever put into civilian space. When that number hits a ticker, the six-decade arrangement where Congress funds space as disguised regional stimulus finally loses its last credible cover.

The reflex will still fire. But for the first time, everyone will see the muscle twitch for what it is.

Sixteen thousand airstrikes. One strait. A month of war. And Brent crude sitting at $126 a barrel while the IEA calls this the largest supply disruption in the history of the global oil market.

The numbers only go in one direction.

The Islamic Republic is bleeding. Obviously. Its supreme leader was assassinated on February 28. Military bases are cratered. Last Thursday, an IRGC official went on state television and announced the minimum age for checkpoint duty was being lowered to twelve. A Guards cultural official in Tehran, Rahim Nadali, dressed it up as youthful enthusiasm. The kids were asking to serve, he said. So the regime obliged.

And none of it has produced surrender.

On March 25, Iran rejected Trump’s 15-point peace proposal and fired back with five conditions of its own, including international recognition of Iranian sovereignty over the Strait of Hormuz and compensation for war damage. Three days later, Parliament Speaker Qalibaf, the man Trump publicly named as his preferred negotiating partner, told state media that Iranian forces were waiting for American troops to arrive on the ground so they could set them on fire.

Then, on March 31, Iran’s Foreign Ministry said flatly: no direct negotiations with the United States have taken place since the war began.

Trump, same day, said the talks were going great.

Both things cannot be true.

Saeid Golkar, the University of Tennessee political scientist who tracks the Revolutionary Guards, told TIME that Iran’s leadership believes it is winning. And honestly? The math checks out. Tanker traffic through Hormuz dropped to zero. Gulf oil production collapsed. Oxford Economics says if prices hold above $140 for two months, parts of the global economy slide into recession. Fertilizer costs are already up 40 percent. Food prices are climbing everywhere.

Iran built this lever over four decades. Openly. Mines, miniature submarines, armed drones, fast-boat swarms. All of it designed to do exactly what it is doing right now. Trump himself, at the White House on March 26, basically said the quiet part out loud: even a 1 percent Iranian missile success rate means a billion-dollar warship sinking. He described this as a problem. Iran described it as a strategy, in public, for thirty-nine years.

So the real question isn’t whether Tehran prepared. The question is why Washington acted like it hadn’t.

Danny Citrinowicz, former Iranian affairs analyst for Israeli military intelligence, wrote in Israel Hayom on March 27 that the campaign was reinforcing the regime, not dismantling it. Alex Younger, former MI6 chief, told the Economist that the U.S. had lost the initiative to Iran about two weeks prior. When a former head of British foreign intelligence says the initiative belongs to Tehran, that’s not punditry. That’s an assessment from someone who spent decades in rooms where those words have consequences.

The Regime That Ate Itself

The decapitation strategy was supposed to work like Venezuela. Kill the top. Watch the rest scatter. Grab a friendly replacement.

In Caracas, it worked. Delcy Rodriguez took the handover. Smooth transition under American supervision.

Tehran went the other direction.

The Assembly of Experts, under intense pressure from IRGC commanders, installed Mojtaba Khamenei as Supreme Leader on March 9. Eleven days after his father was killed. Multiple analysts say Mojtaba is a figurehead. The real power consolidated around IRGC chief Ahmad Vahidi, suspected of overseeing the 1994 Buenos Aires bombing, architect of the brutal 2022 crackdown on Iranian protesters. After Israel killed Ali Larijani, the one diplomat left in the room, the Supreme National Security Council went to Mohammad Zolghadr. An IRGC general. Installed by Vahidi.

Farzin Nadimi at the Washington Institute put it plainly: Trump’s negotiators may be dealing with an IRGC inner circle involved in oppressing and killing the Iranian people at an industrial scale.

The war killed the diplomats. Elevated the generals. Whether anyone in the Pentagon saw that coming is an open question. The results suggest not.

Trump told TIME on March 4 that he wanted to pick Iran’s next leader, like with Delcy in Venezuela. His chosen instrument: Qalibaf, a former Guards general with a reputation for corruption who once showed up at Davos. Golkar’s read on that strategy is blunt. The IRGC does corruption, sure. But they do it through ideology. They think they deserve the money. They think the war validates the revolution. Unlike Maduro’s people, you can’t buy them out of their beliefs, because they don’t experience those beliefs as separate from their interests.

Even if some kind of ceasefire framework emerges, the IRGC has already threatened to have the Houthis close the Bab al-Mandab Strait off Yemen. They’ve published a target list of Gulf energy facilities to hit if Trump follows through on bombing Iranian power plants.

There is no top rung on this escalation ladder. Not one that’s visible from here.

By mid-April, the daily supply loss is projected to double. When it does, $126 a barrel will look like a bargain. And whoever is sitting across from Trump’s team will know it.

References:

TIME: Trump’s 15-Point Peace Plan

PBS: Trump threatens Iran infrastructur

BYD‘s Camaçari plant just shipped its first batch of vehicles to Argentina and Mexico. Stamped Made in Brazil, assembled from Chinese parts, on Chinese production lines, by workers trained in Chinese methods. The label clears Mercosur‘s rules of origin. The cars sell themselves. And Washington, which slapped a 50 percent tariff on Brazilian goods last July under a national emergency declaration it used on no other country, satisfied absolutely nobody.

Here’s the thing about that tariff. The U.S. ran a $29 billion trade surplus with Brazil in 2024. Brazil isn’t flooding American markets. But Brazil is hosting the largest overseas vehicle factory ever built by a Chinese company. The tariff wasn’t about trade. It was about a country Washington considers its backyard inviting Beijing to move in.

Lula’s May 2025 trip to Beijing looked less like diplomacy and more like an acquisition spree. Billion here for aviation fuel. Billion there for a second Chinese car factory. Half a billion in wind and solar. Then both governments announced a joint investment fund, Brazil’s development bank and China’s Ex-Im bank splitting the tab, launching this year. Meanwhile, U.S. investment growth in Brazil over the same stretch? Basically zero.

Beijing’s FDI to Brazil jumped 113 percent. America’s barely registered a pulse.

Washington’s response has been, to put it generously, incoherent. The Trump Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine declares Latin America an exclusive American zone and names China as the intruder. Fine. But claiming a sphere of influence requires actually investing in it. Bombing Caracas, blockading Cuba, and tariffing Brasília into resentment is not a strategy. It’s a tantrum dressed in national security language. The Supreme Court agreed, striking down the IEEPA tariffs 6-3 in February. The legal scaffolding was as rickety as the strategic logic.

Brazil noticed. So did Beijing.

While the White House cycled through threats, rollbacks, and legally dubious replacements, China was pouring concrete. State Grid signed a 30-year franchise to build a massive transmission line across Brazil’s northeast. China Three Gorges already operates inside Brazil’s hydroelectric system. BYD’s complex alone will employ 20,000 people. These aren’t trade credits or soft loans. This is physical infrastructure with 30-year operating horizons. The kind of commitment measured in decades, not electoral cycles.

Now look at Paraguay, because that’s where this gets sharp.

Mercosur rules let a product manufactured in Brazil contain up to 45 percent foreign inputs and still qualify as Brazilian-origin. So BYD cars assembled in Camaçari from Chinese components cross into Paraguay under intra-bloc tariff exemptions. Chinese brands entering a market that would otherwise shut them out. At prices local competitors can’t touch.

Paraguay matters because Asunción is Taiwan’s last diplomatic ally in South America. A relationship held since 1957. Beijing has been trying to break it with increasing aggression. Last August, China publicly told Paraguay to drop Taipei. By October, opposition legislators from Paraguay’s PLRA party were touring six Chinese cities on Beijing’s dime. A Beijing-commissioned survey, later mysteriously deleted, claimed most Paraguayans considered relations with China very important.

Taipei made this worse by building its entire Paraguayan relationship through the ruling Colorado Party and ignoring everyone else. Beijing spotted the gap and walked right through it. The BYD vehicles rolling into Paraguayan dealerships carry Chinese logos but Brazilian paperwork. Each sale chips away at the economic case for sticking with Taiwan.

Then there’s Itaipu. The dam jointly owned by Brazil and Paraguay, supplying 90 percent of Paraguay’s electricity. China holds no direct stake. But as Brazil’s grid modernization increasingly runs on State Grid equipment and Chinese engineering standards, the decisions about upgrades and planning at facilities like Itaipu get made in rooms where Chinese interests carry growing informal weight. Energy sovereignty doesn’t collapse overnight. It erodes. By the time Asunción notices, the wiring is already installed.

The de-dollarization piece has moved past talk. Brazil and China now settle bilateral trade in yuan and reais, skipping the dollar entirely. Yuan-denominated soybean transactions with Brazil alone hit $80 billion. Brazil’s digital currency DREX launches this year with potential interoperability with China’s digital yuan. Trump threatened 100 percent tariffs on BRICS nations pursuing de-dollarization. That threat landed in a region already stinging from a tariff applied under questionable authority, struck down by the courts, then replaced with a weaker levy under an untested statute limited to 150 days.

Credibility, once spent, doesn’t come back on a quarterly schedule.

Congress introduced the United States-Taiwan Partnership in the Americas Act to counter Beijing’s advance. It targets Taiwan’s existing allies. But Taiwan has twelve formal allies left worldwide. The bill doesn’t touch the structural problem: Chinese capital is embedding itself in economies where Taiwan has no diplomatic presence at all, economies like Brazil that set the trade rules for the whole region through Mercosur.

BYD starts full vertically integrated production later this year. Great Wall Motors is building its own Brazilian plant. The bilateral fund launches in 2026. State Grid’s transmission line will run for three decades. Every one of these creates facts on the ground that outlast any single administration, any tariff schedule, any court ruling.

Brasília calls its approach active non-alignment. Beijing calls it opportunity. Washington called it a national emergency, applied the wrong tool at the wrong pressure point, and watched the courts take it away. The concrete at Camaçari dried months ago.

References:

Latin America in a Vise: Trump Corollary vs. China’s Policy Paper – PIIE

BRICS De-Dollarization in 2026 – Watcher Guru

Geopolitics in Your Pocket: How Brazil Is De-Dollarizing – Latinoamérica21

Scott Bessent thinks oil prices will fall to probably much lower than $80 a barrel in a couple of months. Bessent is also, according to Bloomberg, so alarmed about oil prices that his Treasury officials have spent weeks warning the White House about the damage.

Welcome to Operation Epic Fury economics, where the spreadsheets say one thing and the podium says another.

Bloomberg reported on March 25 that senior administration officials have been quietly modeling what $200 oil would do to the economy. Not a prediction, the unnamed sources clarified. Just a contingency exercise. The kind of thing governments do during times of strain.

White House spokesman Kush Desai called the account false, then in the same breath acknowledged the administration is always evaluating various pricing scenarios and economic impacts. The denial contained its own confession.

WTI closed the week near $100. Brent crossed $112. The Strait of Hormuz, which carries a fifth of global oil exports, has been functionally closed since March 2. Over 150 ships anchored outside the chokepoint, going nowhere. Iran set up what amounts to a toll booth, letting Chinese and Russian tankers through for fees paid in yuan. Everyone else waits.

The IEA called it the worst supply shock since the 1970s. Rapidan Energy Group said it exceeds every previous disruption by a factor of two. This is not a drill.

The administration’s answer has been to drain the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. They authorized releasing 172 million barrels, about 40 percent of what was left, from a reserve already at its lowest level in three decades. Energy Secretary Chris Wright promised to replenish it all within a year at no cost to taxpayers, which requires oil to fall sharply from current prices and stay there long enough to buy cheap. That is a bet, not a plan.

Wright told CNN on March 12 that $200 oil is unlikely. Asked if Americans should brace for Iran’s threat of exactly that price, he said: I pay no attention to what Iran says.

Thirteen days later, his colleagues at Treasury were reportedly paying very close attention.

OPEC bumped output by 640,000 barrels per day in February. Helpful, except that Saudi, UAE, and Iraqi crude has nowhere to go because the shipping route is closed. OPEC agreed to add another 206,000 barrels in April. That oil also needs to get through the strait.

Gas jumped a dollar a gallon in thirty days. National average hit $3.98. California is at $5.81. Oxford Economics estimated that if prices hold, the average household pays an extra $740 in fuel costs this year, roughly wiping out the bigger tax refunds the administration had been touting. Trump spent months taking credit for falling gas prices. That talking point is gone.

Consumer sentiment dropped to a three-month low. Republican disapproval of Trump on inflation jumped from 28 to 40 percent between mid-February and late March. House Republicans found themselves explaining why everything costs more right as they were trying to sell a tax bill.

The Fed held rates steady on March 19 and bumped its inflation forecast. Powell said energy costs will push up overall inflation but that it is too soon to know the scope and duration. The ECB held too, but Lagarde warned on March 25 that rate hikes are on the table even if an expected jump in euro zone inflation proves temporary.

Central bankers do not talk like that when they think disruptions are about to end.

Trump told Bessent the market reaction was not as severe as I expected. He said prices would drop very rapidly when this is over. He also threatened Iran with retaliation twenty times harder, announced a ten-day pause on energy strikes, and claimed talks are ongoing and going very well. Iran had publicly rejected negotiations two days earlier.

Shale producers, meanwhile, are sitting on a $63 billion windfall and have told analysts they have no plans to ramp up production. Chevron’s Q1 earnings estimates jumped 40 percent. The oil industry is getting rich. It is just not getting productive.

Twelve developing nations from Egypt to Kenya to El Salvador are watching their bond spreads blow out. The IEA called the combined energy and food security threat the gravest in its history. None of this appeared in Desai’s statement about resilient economic fundamentals and everyday investors set to reap a windfall.

The administration planned for this war to last four to six weeks. It is entering week five. Iran is still refusing talks. The strait is still closed. Oil is still climbing. The SPR is draining. And Treasury is quietly modeling the scenario where crude doubles from here.

The White House says nobody is worried. The models say someone should be.

Four years of diversification strategy and $750 billion pledged to American gas. Last week the leaders of twenty-seven EU nations sat in Brussels and asked each other, with apparently straight faces, why energy prices had spiked since February.

Nobody laughed. This is how the European Union processes déjà vu: summit conclusions, joint statements, and a request for the Commission to produce a report by July.

In 2022, Europe severed itself from Russian gas after the invasion of Ukraine. Diversification echoed through every corridor in Brussels. Never again would the continent depend on a single hostile supplier. Reliable partners. Resilience. A secure future.

Four years later, Germany gets nearly all its LNG from the United States. The EU as a whole buys the majority of its liquefied natural gas from a single country governed by a president who, two weeks before the Brussels summit, publicly threatened a trade embargo on Spain for refusing him military base access. Friedrich Merz sat beside Trump during that outburst and said nothing. Perhaps he was calculating how many cubic metres of American gas Berlin burns per hour.

Last July, Ursula von der Leyen flew to Trump’s Turnberry golf resort in Scotland and signed what the White House celebrated as the largest trade deal in history. Three quarters of a trillion dollars in US oil, LNG, and nuclear technology. Zero tariffs on American imports. In exchange, Trump reduced his threatened tariff on European exports from 30% to 15%. Analysts noted the EU would need to triple its energy imports from the US to hit that target. The deal is currently being debated in the European Parliament, which gives it the feel of a contract everyone signed knowing it described a building that could not physically exist.

Then the Gulf blew up.

Israel and the United States struck Tehran in late February. Iran blocked the Strait of Hormuz. On March 18, Iranian missiles hit Qatar’s Ras Laffan complex, the largest LNG facility on earth. QatarEnergy confirmed the strikes knocked out 17% of export capacity; repairs will take three to five years. Force majeure declared. Gas prices surged. Brent crude briefly touched $119.

Europe does not import much LNG directly from Qatar. This was presumably comforting for about four seconds before someone in Brussels remembered that LNG is a global market, and yanking millions of tonnes of supply out of a global market tends to affect everyone in it.

The Brussels summit produced a joint statement calling for the Strait to reopen and a moratorium on strikes against energy infrastructure. It did not produce European warships, which is what Trump had demanded. France, Germany, Italy, and the Netherlands issued a separate statement welcoming the commitment of nations who are engaging in preparatory planning for securing the waterway. A sentence so carefully emptied of content it could qualify as conceptual art.

The real brawl was over the Emissions Trading System. Ten member states, led by Poland and Italy, published a joint letter demanding the ETS be weakened or suspended. Spain, Sweden, and Denmark fired back that gutting it would reward the fossil fuel laggards and punish companies that had actually invested in going green. Meloni called for the urgent suspension of the application of the ETS to electricity production. The compromise preserved the system on paper while asking the Commission to, yes, review it by July. Carbon prices have already cratered since January. The market priced in the gutting months ago.

Meanwhile, Orbán spent two hours holding a €90 billion Ukraine loan hostage. His condition: resume oil pumping through the Druzhba pipeline first. Oil, then solidarity. He did not budge. Neither did Slovakia.

Belgium’s Bart De Wever had already set the mood that weekend by declaring Europe should normalize relations with Russia and get the cheap gas flowing again. In private, European leaders agree with me, but no one dares say it out loud, he told L’Echo. His own Foreign Minister immediately contradicted him. The AfD, currently topping German polls, wants sanctions on Russia lifted yesterday. The circle is eager to complete itself.

Merz, at least, appears to have noticed the pattern. Bloomberg reported he is seeking energy deals in the Persian Gulf to reduce dependence on Washington. He has described the current era as one of great power politics in which the US is no longer a reliable partner. He is, in other words, diversifying away from the country Europe diversified toward when it diversified away from Russia. The next supplier will presumably be whoever Europe panics away from in 2030.

Georg Zachmann at Bruegel called it madness that sunshine-drenched southern Italy still hasn’t blanketed itself in solar panels. China, hit harder by the Hormuz closure as the world’s biggest oil importer, barely flinched. Beijing spent years electrifying everything. Over half the cars sold there are electric. That wasn’t climate idealism. It was energy security strategy, built for exactly this kind of shock. Europe’s legally binding target is a 90% emissions cut by 2040. Zachmann’s question: Are they actually credible?

Dan Marks at RUSI put it best. Every time there is an oil and gas crisis, everyone thinks it is a turning point. Think back to the 1970s. Now it is 2026 and we are just as exposed as ever.

The Strait of Hormuz remains closed. Qatar’s biggest LNG facility won’t be fixed until at least 2029. And somewhere in Brussels, a diplomat is drafting the word diversification into a fresh set of summit conclusions, confident that this time it will mean something different.

Sources:

EU summit: Leaders urge moratorium on energy strikes

Ten EU countries reinforce attack against ETS

Trump-von der Leyen Turnberry deal analysis

Belgian PM De Wever: Europe must strike deal with Russia

A Greek Patriot battery in Saudi Arabia shot down two Iranian ballistic missiles on March 19. First combat engagement in the four-year history of the ELDYSA mission. A handful of Greek Air Force personnel, stationed at Yanbu to guard Aramco’s Red Sea oil infrastructure, finally had to fire.

Three days later, Mitsotakis stood at the European Council and essentially said: so, about that mutual defense clause.

When a drone hit RAF Akrotiri on March 2, cracking the runway of a British sovereign base in Cyprus, Greece didn’t wait for a committee. Athens sent two frigates and four F-16s within 24 hours. France sent a frigate and anti-drone kit. Italy, the Netherlands, Spain followed by March 5. Christodoulides, the Cypriot president, called it a de facto, if not de jure activation of Article 42(7), the EU’s mutual assistance clause. The European Commission’s response was, predictably, that no formal activation had taken place.

Ships were in the water. Jets were in the air. Brussels was in a meeting.

Article 42(7) says member states must help when one of them gets attacked. It’s been triggered exactly once, after the Paris attacks in 2015, and even then the response was a patchwork of bilateral deals. No standing framework. No force packages. No command chain. For most EU members, the clause is a nice paragraph in a treaty. For Cyprus, which sits outside NATO and can’t invoke Article 5, it is the entire security architecture or it is nothing.

Nicosia has now forced the clause onto the agenda of the informal EU summit on April 23-24. The summit will be held in Cyprus.

Christodoulides has been briefing European leaders on what life near the British bases actually looks like since early March. Air raid sirens. Warning messages on phones. A war being fought from Cypriot soil without Cypriot consent. The political fallout is already moving faster than diplomacy. Parliamentary elections hit on May 24, and polling shows half the country thinks no existing party represents them. Anti-system movements are surging: the far-right ELAM, Fidias Panayiotou’s Direct Democracy party, the reformist ALMA founded by former Auditor General Odysseas Michaelides. The Akrotiri strike gave all of them the same line: the British bases make Cyprus a target.

Christodoulides is trying to own this before it buries him. He told reporters all options are on the table regarding the bases and confirmed he’s had a preliminary chat with Keir Starmer. London’s response, via parliamentary undersecretary Al Carns, was that the bases’ future is not in question. Starmer has pledged the Sovereign Base Areas won’t be used by American forces for strikes on Iran. Cold comfort for the 10,000 Cypriots who live inside those base perimeters and heard the sirens regardless.

Greece is playing a different game entirely. The Yanbu interceptions gave Mitsotakis something tangible to throw at Turkey’s recurring complaints about Greek military buildup in the Aegean. Ankara accused Athens again in early March of violating the demilitarized status of several islands under the 1923 Lausanne Treaty and the 1947 Paris Peace Treaty, the same argument Turkey has recycled for decades, now sharpened by Greece’s deployment of a Patriot battery to Karpathos after the Akrotiri strike. Mitsotakis called the Saudi interceptions strictly defensive actions. The framing is deliberate: Greek air defenses just protected global oil supply chains from Iranian ballistic missiles. Try calling that provocative militarization with a straight face in a European capital.

But most EU member states aren’t losing sleep over Article 42(7). For the majority, the Middle East is an energy price problem and, maybe, a terrorism pipeline. Poland’s President Nawrocki vetoed legislation in mid-March that would have unlocked EU defense loans. The European Parliament voted overwhelmingly to strengthen the mutual defense clause. Parliamentary votes don’t move warships.

Greece and Cyprus are betting they can build operational precedent faster than the full bloc can build institutional consensus. The ships that sailed to Cyprus weren’t dispatched under any EU mechanism. They were national decisions, coordinated bilaterally, executed before anyone in Brussels picked up a pen. If the April summit turns that into doctrine, the clause means something. If it produces another round of statements about European strategic autonomy, Athens and Nicosia will have confirmed what they probably already suspect: the most persuasive argument for collective defense is showing up before anyone asks.

Sources:

Greek Patriot Battery Intercepts Two Iranian Ballistic Missiles

Why Cyprus is pushing the EU to define its mutual defence clause

Poland’s Foreign Minister Radosław Sikorski dropped a small bomb on X this Saturday. The target: his own president. Karol Nawrocki is flying to Budapest on Monday to stand next to Viktor Orbán at what’s being billed as a Patriotic Grand Assembly, and Sikorski wants everyone to know exactly what that means. The man Nawrocki is going to embrace, Sikorski wrote, is the same one who is blocking the 20th sanctions package against Russia and the return of 2 billion zlotys for equipment that the Polish Army transferred to Ukraine.

That should have been enough to cancel the trip. It wasn’t.

Monday’s guest list reads like a who’s who of Europe’s most committed Putin apologists: Marine Le Pen, Matteo Salvini, Andrej Babiš, Geert Wilders. Sikorski called them Putin cheerleaders. Hard to argue with the label. Nawrocki chose to join this group voluntarily, three weeks before Hungary’s April 12 election, at the exact moment Orbán is most desperate to project international support because domestically, the ground is cracking beneath him.

Péter Magyar’s opposition rallied roughly three times the crowd Orbán managed on March 15. Most polls show Magyar’s Tisza party ahead. Orbán’s response has not been reflection or recalibration. It has been spectacle. Surround yourself with friendly foreign faces. Frame a domestic referendum on corruption and economic rot as a civilizational war. Hope nobody notices the difference.

And then there’s the Russia problem, which is no longer a subtext.

Investigative journalist Szabolcs Panyi reported in VSquare that GRU military intelligence operatives are currently working out of the Russian Embassy in Budapest, coordinating a disinformation campaign to keep Orbán in power. The Kremlin-linked Social Design Agency, already U.S.-sanctioned, reportedly drew up plans to flood Hungarian social media with pro-Orbán content manufactured in Moscow but posted by local influencers. Magyar seized on it. At a rally in Pécs on March 8, his crowd chanted Russians, go home. On March 15, he called Orbán a traitor.

Orbán hasn’t denied any of it with specifics. Instead, his campaign pivoted to warning voters about an alleged Ukrainian invasion, a claim so absurd that Sikorski pointed to a special GRU team helping to push it. The fiction does its job: reframe the election around an external threat, position Orbán as defender of sovereignty, distract from the fact that his government is actively shielding the actual aggressor from consequences.

The sanctions blockade alone is remarkable. Hungary has vetoed the EU’s latest sanctions package and a proposed loan to Ukraine, citing a Russian drone strike on the Brody pumping station in January that disrupted oil through the Druzhba pipeline. Russia bombed the infrastructure. Orbán blames Ukraine. The entire European sanctions architecture is held hostage to a dispute manufactured by the country the sanctions target. Two hours of an EU summit were burned trying to move him. He didn’t budge.

This is the man Nawrocki is flying to Budapest to support.

Nawrocki won the Polish presidency last June with overwhelming far-right backing. He courted Grzegorz Braun, a candidate who ran on open antisemitism. He promised to end Hanukkah candle-lighting at the presidential palace. Since taking office, he’s been vetoing Tusk’s legislation at a pace that will break Poland’s all-time record by the end of this month. He opposes Ukraine’s EU and NATO membership. On paper, he’s closer to Orbán than to his own government’s foreign policy.

Tusk posted on Sunday with unusual bluntness: Nawrocki’s participation is a fatal mistake and confirmation of a dangerous strategy to weaken the European Union and strengthen Putin. That’s a sitting prime minister publicly accusing his own president of undermining national interests. In Poland. Out loud.

Sikorski’s parting shot deserves to stick: Mr. President, please take an interest in why Orbán’s nationalism and thievery have caused Hungary to become the poorest country in the European Union. Is that what you wish for Poland?

Hungary’s democratic institutions are hollowed out. Its media is captured. Its economy has stagnated under cronyism. Nawrocki is flying there to stand on a stage next to the man who did all of it, flanked by Le Pen and Salvini, in a city where GRU operatives are reportedly working the feeds.

Whatever Nawrocki says at the podium, Sikorski and Tusk have already told the world what Warsaw’s elected government thinks of it. The Polish foreign ministry and the Polish presidency are now operating on opposite sides of Europe’s defining argument, openly, in the same week Russian intelligence stands accused of meddling in the very election Nawrocki is there to celebrate.

Nobody at the presidential palace seems bothered by this.

Sources:

Washington Post: Orbán and Magyar rival rallies

Euromaidan Press: Poland’s FM opposes president’s trip to Budapest

Sometime yesterday night, from his Florida estate, Trump posted on Truth Social what amounted to a countdown clock on a regional catastrophe. Open the Strait of Hormuz in 48 hours or the United States will hit and obliterate Iranian power plants, starting with the biggest. Tehran responded within hours. Iran’s military command said if its energy infrastructure gets hit, every energy facility, IT system, and desalination plant belonging to the US and its allies in the region becomes a target.

Four weeks into the war and the Strait of Hormuz is functionally dead. Trump called the economic fallout a little glitch ten days in, when gas had only jumped 50 cents and the Fed was still pretending March inflation data would be manageable. Two weeks later, the glitch has metastasized.

But what happened this weekend is different. The escalation just shifted from oil to water. From commodity markets to whether people can drink.

Kuwait gets 90 percent of its drinking water from desalination plants. Oman, 86. Saudi Arabia, 70. Qatar and Bahrain roughly the same. About 100 million people across the Gulf drink manufactured water, piped from coastal facilities sitting on exposed shorelines, within range of Iranian missiles and drones.

This is already happening. March 7, Iran accused the US of hitting a desalination plant on Qeshm Island, cutting water to 30 villages. Washington denied it. Next day, Bahrain said an Iranian drone damaged a facility near Muharraq. Kuwait and the UAE have both acknowledged indirect hits on their own plants.

Tehran formalizing desalination as a retaliatory target is not a new category of warfare. Both sides already crossed that line.

The real nightmare sits on Saudi Arabia’s eastern coast. Jubail. One desalination complex feeding Riyadh through a single 500-kilometre pipeline. A leaked US diplomatic cable from 2008 warned that serious damage to Jubail would force the evacuation of 8.5 million people within a week. Saudi Arabia has since built backup pipelines, storage tanks, emergency units. Whether any of that holds under sustained missile fire from a regime fighting for its survival is something nobody in Riyadh wants to find out. Especially when the military supposedly shielding the region burned through half its Arrow interceptor stockpile in four days and is now choosing which Iranian munitions to intercept and which to let through.

Gulf states saw this coming. Small mobile desalination units, diesel-powered, off-grid, deployed across Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE. Abu Dhabi pumped desalinated water into an underground aquifer, enough for maybe 90 days.

Sensible. Also wildly insufficient if Iran starts systematically hitting the big coastal plants.

Trump’s ultimatum forces a brutal calculation on Tehran. The Hormuz blockade is Iran’s strongest card. The IRGC declared not one litre of oil passes through for enemy nations. Reopening it under an American deadline would be a surrender the regime cannot politically survive, not while bombs are still falling on Iranian soil. Refusing means Monday evening the clock runs out, American strikes begin on Iranian power infrastructure, and Iran has already pre-committed to answering by going after the systems that keep Gulf populations alive.

Washington calls the Hormuz closure economic warfare. Tehran points to Qeshm Island. Bahrain’s damaged plant proves Iran will act, not just talk. And the 100 million people whose water depends on coastal facilities they cannot protect have no seat at any table where this gets decided.

Bomb a power plant and generators pick up part of the slack. Bomb an oil terminal and revenues bleed but nobody dies by Thursday. Bomb a desalination complex in a country where it barely rains, where the aquifers are depleted or salt-poisoned, and the humanitarian crisis arrives in days.

The water crisis has no dollar figure because it has no market solution. No strategic reserve to tap. No alternative supplier to call.

None of the Gulf states asked for this war. None have fired a shot. Bahrain, Kuwait, the UAE, Saudi Arabia are absorbing the fallout of a US-Israeli campaign they did not start, while Washington and Tehran both treat their territory as acceptable collateral. The question of who is actually running this war, a country whose prime minister hasn’t been seen in public for two weeks or the administration drip-feeding its interceptors, matters very little to Gulf populations watching their taps.

Riyadh has said almost nothing publicly. Allied with Washington, dependent on a stability Iran can destroy, sitting on a water system built for peacetime.

What happens when the desalination plants go dark and 100 million people in the driest region on earth find out the real weapon was never oil.

References:

• Bloomberg: Why Desalination Plants Are Key Vulnerability for Gulf States

• CNN: Water is even more vital than oil in the Middle East

  This Substack is reader-supported. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Semafor reported on March 14 that Israel had privately told Washington its ballistic missile interceptor stockpile was critically low. Hours later, the IDF denied it. Everything was fine, actually. Fewer interceptors used than expected.

Both of these cannot be true, and the gap between them says more about where this war is going than any press conference.

Three weeks into a real shooting war with Iran, the whole defensive architecture is bending. The Arrow system chewed through more than half its inventory in four days. Replacing that takes roughly 32 months. Iran keeps launching.

For decades, the IDF built its reputation against people who could not fight back. Gaza is 41 kilometers of blockaded rubble with no air force, no navy, no shelters, and no missile defense. The West Bank offers stones. Against all of that, Israel deployed F-35s, Merkava tanks, and precision munitions, and the world was supposed to call it strength. Over 75,000 dead in Gaza since October 2023. Sniper teams deployed against teenagers. Fighter jets sent over refugee camps.

The word invincible got passed around like it meant something.

By March 19, Tehran was firing five separate salvos at Jerusalem and northern Israel within a single hour. And today a missile hit Dimona, the town housing Israel’s nuclear research center. A ten-year-old boy caught shrapnel. Forty people hospitalized. The IAEA said no damage to the reactor. But a warhead landing next to the most sensitive nuclear site in the country is not something you shrug off with a statement.

The Times of Israel reported that the Air Force had started choosing not to intercept certain Iranian cluster bomblets when civilians were already in shelters.

Let that sit for a second…

The military is now picking which munitions to stop and which to let through. In Gaza, there are no sirens. No shelters. No Iron Dome overhead. People just die where they stand. In Israel, the sirens blare, the shelters fill, the interceptors fly, and still people get hurt. The Health Ministry told citizens to rush to shelters with caution because people were injuring themselves in the panic. Millions sprinting from room to room, sometimes minutes apart.

That is what happens when the other side has real weapons. The posture changes fast when the enemy is not a barefoot kid with a rock.

Eighteen Israelis dead in three weeks. Over 3,100 Iranians killed by US-Israeli strikes, including the children of Shajareh Tayyebeh elementary school in Minab, where a first-day strike killed around 175 people, most of them girls aged seven to twelve. CNN, the New York Times, and the BBC concluded the US was likely responsible. Outdated intelligence. Wrong coordinates. A UN investigation is open.

Netanyahu called it winning. Said Iran was being decimated. Same vocabulary as every Gaza campaign, where winning meant flattening apartment blocks and decimated meant entire neighborhoods ground to dust. The rhetoric never changes. Only now the audience can see both sides of the screen: the bombing runs and the shelters, the bravado and the panic.

Trump, predictably, made it worse. On March 20 he floated winding down operations. I think we’ve won. Same day, 2,500 Marines shipped out. The Pentagon reportedly drew up plans for a ground operation on Kharg Island. He ruled out a ceasefire. Tehran does not believe him.

Hard to argue with that: you do not wind down a war while sending reinforcements.

And without American interceptors, intelligence, and direct military involvement, Israel’s position against Iran would collapse. Every previous Gaza operation required zero outside help because the adversary had zero capacity to resist. The self-reliance myth dies the moment the rockets come from somewhere other than a besieged strip with no running water.

The conflict already spilled past its borders. Iran hit Kuwait’s Mina al-Ahmadi refinery. Struck targets in the UAE. Energy infrastructure burning across the Gulf.

The army that looked so fearsome bombing the most defenseless population on earth is now sheltering behind Washington to survive a fight with someone that shoots back. That is just what happened.

Sources:

Semafor: Israel is running critically low on interceptors

FPRI: Over 5,000 Munitions Shot in the First 96 Hours

Times of Israel: IAF choosing not to shoot down some Iranian cluster bomblets

Euronews: Iranian missile strikes Dimona

Al Jazeera: Day 22 of US-Israel attacks

Al Jazeera: US-Israel attacks death toll tracker

Haaretz: IDF data on interception rate

Boris Pistorius stood at a podium in Berlin on Monday and said five words that would have been unthinkable a year ago: This is not our war, we have not started it.

He wasn’t freelancing. Germany’s defence minister was reading from a script approved by Friedrich Merz, a chancellor who built his entire political brand on being a loyal Atlanticist. Merz himself had just told the Bundestag that Washington launched this thing without asking, without a plan, and without explaining why German warships should be sailing into the Strait of Hormuz to mop up the fallout.

Nineteen days into the U.S.-Israeli bombing campaign against Iran, the Atlantic alliance is cracking open, and not over Ukraine, not over tariffs, not over Greenland. Over a war in the Persian Gulf that Europe had zero hand in starting. Trump asked for ships. He got refusals from Berlin, Paris, Rome, Athens, Madrid, Helsinki, and The Hague. Kaja Kallas, the EU’s foreign policy chief, put it bluntly after the Brussels ministerial: Nobody wants to go actively in this war.

Iran’s IRGC shut down the Strait of Hormuz within hours of the February 28 strikes. Oil spiked past $120. A fifth of the world’s crude flows through that chokepoint. Send your navies, prise it open, call it collective security. But every European capital heard the same subtext: join a war you had no say in, with no defined endgame, to fix a crisis the bombing created.

Finland’s foreign minister drew the cleanest line. NATO, Elena Valtonen reminded reporters, is a defensive alliance: we won’t be dragged into any war of choice. Greece and Italy ruled out participation outright. Even Denmark, usually desperate to keep Washington happy after that whole Greenland episode, could only muster a tepid suggestion to keep an open mind.

Trump, naturally, took it well.

Seated in the Oval Office beside the Irish prime minister on Tuesday, he called the allied refusal a very foolish mistake and told the Financial Times it would be very bad for the future of NATO. Then, hours later on Truth Social, he declared the United States does not need the help of anyone. Begging for ships in the morning, scorning the offer by evening. Classic.

Keir Starmer caught the worst of it personally. Trump called him no Winston Churchill, a line designed for tabloid splash pages. It backfired spectacularly. Kemi Badenoch, the Conservative leader and no Starmer fan, called the White House rhetoric childish. Reform UK’s Robert Jenrick, who had initially backed the strikes, said he didn’t appreciate seeing a British prime minister berated by foreign leaders. YouGov polling had Britons opposed to the conflict by a wide margin. Starmer’s caution, far from looking weak, gave him something rare: cross-party cover.

Spain went further and louder. Pedro Sánchez denounced the strikes as unjustified and illegal, then barred U.S. forces from using the jointly operated air base at Morón de la Frontera or the naval station at Rota for offensive operations. Trump threatened to cut all trade with Spain, which was a fun bluff given that Spain trades under EU-wide agreements he can’t unilaterally tear up. Deputy Prime Minister María José Montero fired back: We are certainly not going to be anybody’s vassals.

Even the Alternative for Germany turned on him. A party that spent months cozying up to the Trump administration. Co-leader Tino Chrupalla delivered the line that probably stung most in Washington: Donald Trump started out as a peace president; he will end up as a war president.

Underneath all the podium theatrics, Europe is running two bets at once.

Bet one is defensive. Stay out of a conflict where Washington and Jerusalem can’t even agree on what victory looks like. A senior European official told Reuters the American and Israeli war aims were not defined or clear and likely diverged. Translation: nobody knows who governs Tehran after the bombs stop, and nobody wants to own that question.

Bet two is opportunistic, and this is the part Washington should actually worry about. France has quietly started assembling an alternative convoy system for the strait, explicitly without the United States. Macron has been consulting European, Indian, and Gulf Arab partners. India already negotiated its own passage through bilateral talks with Tehran. France pledged ten additional warships to the region. Paris is sending a signal that’s hard to misread: Europe will secure its own energy supply by talking to Iran, not bombing it. Macron said as much: This work will require discussions and de-escalation with Iran.

Then there’s the Russia problem. On March 12, Trump temporarily lifted sanctions on Russian oil shipments at sea, trying to cool prices his own war had spiked. European leaders who spent two years enforcing those sanctions watched the White House shred them overnight. Moscow called it a windfall. Zelensky warned the revenue would pour straight into Russia’s war chest. The move didn’t even work; oil stayed elevated because the fundamental issue, a closed strait, was still there.

Kallas told Reuters that European leaders have learned to expect unpredictable things to happen all the time from Washington and to respond by putting, in her phrase, ice in their hats. Composed language. But what’s actually happening is colder than any metaphor. Europe isn’t just sitting this one out. It’s building a parallel architecture for the crisis, one that treats American military action as the problem and Iranian diplomacy as the only realistic solution.

Whether that holds is another question entirely. If Iran starts hitting European-flagged vessels, the calculus changes overnight. If oil stays above $120 for months, recession politics will scramble every government’s position. Hezbollah rockets are falling on northern Israel. Israeli troops are in southern Lebanon. Iranian drones hit Dubai International Airport. This conflict is widening, not shrinking, and Europe’s bet on staying out depends on the assumption that a sideline still exists to stand on.

Merz closed his Bundestag speech with a sentence that landed heavier than it sounded: We would have advised against pursuing this course of action. Past conditional, doing a lot of work. Berlin didn’t advise against it because Berlin was never asked.

That silence, before the bombs fell, is now the loudest sound in the alliance.

Sources:

CNN: NATO allies reject Trump Iran war demands

CNBC: Trump slams NATO allies

CNBC: France ready to help secure Strait once fighting stops

CNN: Spain Sánchez rejection of Trump

Fortune: Iran war is not NATO’s war

Maya MacGuineas sat before the Senate’s Fiscal Responsibility Subcommittee on March 11 with charts showing the country is borrowing itself into a corner. Senators nodded. Asked thoughtful questions. Then walked back to a Capitol where the law they passed eight months ago is already adding trillions to the deficit, according to the CBO’s own score published the same week.

Washington loves diagnosing the disease while injecting the patient with more of the virus.

The national debt hit $38.86 trillion as of early March, growing at roughly $7 billion a day. The Treasury will cross $39 trillion before the month ends. Net interest payments on federal debt now exceed what the country spends on its entire military. Servicing yesterday’s borrowing costs more than fielding the most expensive war machine in human history.

Congress, naturally, has a plan. Several plans. All involving commissions.

The latest proposal envisions a bipartisan fiscal commission that would review all federal spending, produce recommendations, and secure floor votes under strict timelines. It would do everything Congress was elected to do but has declined to attempt for two decades.

Simpson-Bowles reported in 2010. Politely shelved. The supercommittee of 2011 deadlocked. Debt ceiling negotiations have occasionally imposed modest caps that did nothing to alter the trajectory. Every serious attempt at fiscal consolidation has been strangled by the same bipartisan consensus: cut nothing voters notice, tax nothing donors fund.

And then there is DOGE. Launched with promises of $2 trillion in savings. Quietly revised to $1 trillion. Then $150 billion. A DOGE employee admitted under deposition on March 16 that the initiative’s savings did little, if anything, for the deficit. Brookings put verified savings around $5 to $6 billion. One-tenth of one percent of federal spending. Of 30 programs Trump proposed slashing in his 2026 budget, one was eliminated. The bills Congress approved for 2026 actually increase spending from 2025 levels.

The OBBBA, the flagship legislative achievement, pushes federal debt held by the public to 127% of GDP by 2034 under the CBO’s score. If its temporary provisions become permanent, as temporary provisions in Washington always do, debt reaches 129%. This is the legislature now being asked to staff a commission on fiscal responsibility.

The CRFB warned this month that by 2031, the average interest rate on federal debt will exceed the rate of economic growth. When that crossover happens, debt becomes self-reinforcing. Higher borrowing pushes rates up. Slower growth shrinks revenues. Wider deficits demand more borrowing. Economists call it a feedback loop. Everyone else should call it a trap.

Social Security’s trust fund faces insolvency within seven years. Medicare is on a similar clock. When those deadlines hit, the law mandates automatic benefit cuts. Not gradual reforms. Not elegant commission recommendations. Abrupt reductions to checks that 70 million Americans depend on.

The Fortune piece that kicked off this discussion quotes Hemingway on bankruptcy: gradually and then suddenly. The analogy flatters Washington. Hemingway’s character at least had the excuse of not seeing it coming. Every senator in that subcommittee hearing has$ read the CBO projections. Every member who voted for the OBBBA saw the score. The debt figure is published daily, to the penny, on the Treasury’s own website.

The danger is that it does, and has decided to live with it until the math makes the decision for them.

Sources:

National Debt Reaches $38.86 Trillion – Joint Economic Committee

OBBBA Dynamic Score Comes In at $4.7 Trillion – CRFB

A ‘Debt Spiral’ Before a Fiscal Crisis – Fortune

Interest on the National Debt Has Tripled Since 2020 – Fortune

DOGE Staffer Deposition on Deficit Impact – Fortune

Congress Rejected Most of Trump’s Spending Cuts – Washington Times

CBO Budget and Economic Outlook: 2026 to 2036

Debt Rises to 175% of GDP Under CBO Long-Term Outlook – CRFB

Poland’s GDP crossed $1 trillion in 2025 and Marco Rubio responded by inviting Warsaw to the G20 summit Trump is hosting at Doral this December. Poland, a nation that was once trapped behind the Iron Curtain but now ranks among the world’s 20 largest economies, will be joining us to assume its rightful place in the G20, Rubio wrote.

Rightful. That word is doing a lot of heavy lifting.

A generation ago, Poles rationed sugar and flour. Per capita income was a fraction of the EU average. Now, on a PPP basis at least, it sits roughly level with Japan’s. That comparison deserves an asterisk the size of Warsaw, PPP is a cost-of-living adjustment, not a measure of national wealth, and nominal GDP still puts Japan comfortably ahead. But the trajectory is real: growth has averaged nearly double the European rate since Poland joined the bloc in 2004. No other post-communist economy comes close.

The story of how matters. Warsaw basically copy-pasted the institutional architecture of Western Europe: real courts, anti-monopoly enforcement, bank regulation tough enough to keep the oligarchs out. Russia and Ukraine let their economies get captured. Poland didn’t. Marcin Piątkowski of Kozminski University argues the whole thing worked because Poles had one unshakable consensus across the political spectrum: get into the EU. Left and right fought about everything else. The destination was never in question. That consensus is no longer what it was.

EU money helped, obviously. Billions in structural funds, both before and after accession. But here is where 2026 gets complicated. Recovery and Resilience Plan funding runs out this year. And Poland is no longer simply waiting for EU pipelines to dry up: President Nawrocki recently vetoed a bill that would have unlocked €43.7 billion in cheap EU defense loans, forcing the government into a legally untested workaround through the National Development Bank. The pipeline is going dry. Warsaw is also closing its own taps.

Because Poland’s most expensive project is just getting started.

Warsaw now outspends every NATO ally on defense as a share of GDP, including the United States. The 2026 budget puts 4.8% of GDP toward the military, with a target of 5%. F-35s, K2 tanks, Patriot batteries. When your neighbor is Ukraine, the logic writes itself. The bill, though, is something else entirely. And the question of who benefits from this buildup, Warsaw or Washington, is one that cheerful GDP charts tend to skip over.

The deficit hit 6.8% of GDP in 2025. Second largest in Europe, during a strong economy with a closed output gap. The IMF came through last year and said what everyone already knew: debt is heading for 69% of GDP by 2027 and close to 80% by 2031. Spending has surged since 2021. New social programs, public-sector raises, ballooning debt costs. Revenue barely moved. Structural gap. Not a blip.

And underneath all of it, the demographics.

Poland is losing workers. The Polish Economic Institute projects 2.1 million gone from the labor force by 2035. Warsaw’s own labor strategy admits foreign workers need to hit 12% of the workforce by 2030 just to keep the lights on. Ukrainians filled that gap after 2022, but surveys show most of the war refugees plan to go home. That is a lot of labor walking out the door with very little notice.

Polish officials love pointing to Solaris, the electric bus company out of Poznan. Fair enough. Founded by a guy who started fixing cars with West German spare parts under communism, now controls 15% of Europe’s electric bus market. Bet on batteries in 2011, years before the big Western manufacturers. A real success. But after three decades, Solaris is still one of very few Polish firms with anything resembling a global brand. The country builds components for other people’s supply chains. Getting higher on that value ladder remains more aspiration than reality.

So the G20 invitation lands at an odd moment. When The Economist ran Poland on its cover earlier this year, the tone was pure coronation: Europe’s new power, the continent’s growth engine, a miracle three decades in the making. That kind of coverage tends to arrive right when the cracks are forming. Poland’s transformation since 1989 is genuine, possibly the most impressive development story in modern European history. Young Poles are better educated than young Germans and earn half as much. Engineers are leaving Silicon Valley to come back to Poznan. Brain drain reversing. That part is remarkable and real.

But defense at 5% of GDP, a vanishing workforce, rising debt, expiring EU funds, and social spending that no coalition dares cut are all hitting the same budget at the same time. Growth of 3.6% looks healthy until you notice the deficit required to produce it would normally trigger enforcement proceedings from Brussels. And Euroskepticism, once a fringe position in Poland, now runs at roughly one in four citizens, with close to half of opposition voters favoring exit. Nobody campaigns on Polexit. Nobody needs to. A president with a veto pen and an opposition that treats every Brussels-adjacent initiative as a sovereignty violation produces the same result without a referendum: a country inside the bloc but unable to use its instruments.

Rubio called Poland’s seat at the table rightful. The economy earned it. The budget will determine whether Poland gets to keep it. And if the international press is any guide, the coronation coverage usually arrives just in time to mark the peak.

Sources:

US invites Poland to G20 summit

Polish economy grows 3.6% in 2025 - ING

Poland plans record defence spending 4.8% GDP

IMF 2025 Article IV Consultation - Poland

Poland’s public debt rises at second-fastest rate in EU

Poland’s demographic crisis and shrinking workforce

Donald Tusk called Polexit a real threat on Sunday. Not in some abstract, keep-your-eyes-open kind of way. He said it four days after President Karol Nawrocki vetoed a bill that would have unlocked €43.7 billion in cheap EU defense loans. Four days from a blocked bill to an existential warning.

The thing is, Tusk isn’t wrong. He’s just describing the wrong mechanism.

Poland is trying to spend nearly 5 percent of GDP on defense, the highest ratio in NATO, while a war burns next door in Ukraine. The SAFE loans were supposed to be the backbone of that plan: low-interest money from Brussels earmarked for missile defense, anti-drone systems, heavy equipment. Nawrocki pulled the plug and offered, in its place, a vague counter-proposal his allies call SAFE 0 percent, funded domestically. No text. No timeline. No math.

Nawrocki’s pitch was fiscal caution. The SAFE mechanism is a massive foreign loan taken out for 45 years in a foreign currency, he said on television. Sounds responsible. Except Poland is already borrowing at massive scale through its own Armed Forces Support Fund. The only difference is that the EU facility offered far better rates than anything Warsaw can get on open markets.

So Nawrocki didn’t veto borrowing. He vetoed cheaper borrowing. That distinction matters.

Tusk’s government scrambled. On Friday the cabinet pushed through a workaround, routing SAFE funds through the National Development Bank to bypass the vetoed legislation entirely. Brussels signaled it could release an initial tranche once Poland signs. But the workaround is legally untested, covers only military spending, and strips out billions originally meant for border security. It’s duct tape on a structural problem.

Tusk doesn’t have the votes to override a presidential veto. Nawrocki, backed by PiS and the far-right Confederation, can block any legislation touching EU integration or defense financing without lifting a finger in parliament.

Former PiS Europe Minister Konrad Szymański, not a liberal, not a Tusk ally, wrote on Friday that Poland’s nationalist right had drifted onto a road toward Polexit. He drew direct parallels to the dynamics that preceded Brexit. That warning hit different because it came from inside the house.

The polls back him up. Support for leaving the EU has climbed to roughly one in four Poles, up from under 7 percent in 2019. Among PiS voters, nearly half now favor exit. Among the youngest voters, over a third would back departure. These aren’t governing majorities. But Brexit didn’t start as a majority position either. It started as a factional obsession that warped the decision-making of an entire party until the referendum became inevitable, not because most Britons wanted out, but because the Tories couldn’t manage their own contradictions without one.

Poland’s version of that dynamic is already running. PiS doesn’t campaign on Polexit. Mateusz Morawiecki praised the veto as the right decision. Sławomir Mentzen of Confederation echoed him. Nobody says exit. Nobody needs to. Each blocked loan, each sovereignty tantrum, each refusal to engage with EU fiscal architecture produces the same functional result: a country inside the bloc but unable to use its instruments. Paying dues. Forfeiting benefits. Drifting.

Tusk on Sunday linked all of this to Russia, MAGA, and Viktor Orbán. Useful framing for rallying the base. But it obscures what’s actually happening, which is entirely domestic. Poland doesn’t need a foreign conspiracy to slide toward the door. It just needs what it already has: a president with veto power, an opposition that treats every Brussels-adjacent initiative as a sovereignty violation, and a public where Euroskepticism is growing fastest among the voters who will dominate the next decade.

A majority of Poles still wanted Nawrocki to sign the SAFE bill. Whether that majority can translate into anything when the veto sits on the other side of the desk is the only question that matters now.

If the workaround holds and Brussels releases the money, Tusk buys time. If it doesn’t, Poland will be running the most expensive military buildup in its modern history on domestic credit alone, at market rates, under an EU excessive deficit procedure, with a hostile president blocking every alternative path.

That’s not Polexit by referendum. That’s Polexit by suffocation.

References:

Notes From Poland: Quarter of Poles now favour leaving EU

Brussels Signal: Support for EU ‘Polexit’ at historic high

Warsaw Business Journal: Poland plans 5% GDP defense allocation

Notes From Poland: Record defence spending of 4.8% GDP in 2026 budget

Oil past $100. A $26 billion credit fund gated. The Fed frozen between inflation it can’t tolerate and growth it can’t afford to kill. All in the same two weeks. The Iran war didn’t create these crises. It lit the fuse on three that were already wired together.

Trump posted a video of bombs hitting Kharg Island, Iran’s main oil terminal, like footage of explosions was a substitute for a plan. The IRGC responded by declaring the Strait of Hormuz closed. And the Fed can’t fix any of it.

Before February 28, when US-Israeli strikes killed Khamenei and set off everything that followed, oil was at $71. Now it’s up nearly 70%. Saudi Arabia is rerouting crude through its East-West pipeline to the Red Sea. The UAE is pushing barrels through Fujairah. Neither comes close to covering the gap. Kuwait declared force majeure and shut down production. Qatar warned others might follow.

Meanwhile, Iran has shipped millions of barrels to China since the war started. Paid in yuan. Turkish and Indian ships got through too. The Strait is not closed to everyone. It is closed to the West.

The Pentagon floated the idea of escorted convoys, but Energy Secretary Christopher Wright admitted those might not start before the end of the month. Hegseth called the blockade sheer desperation, which is a bold thing to say when five ships a day are getting through a waterway that used to handle 138.

Now zoom out.

BlackRock gated withdrawals from its $26 billion private credit fund on March 6. Clients wanted out. The firm said no, capping redemptions after demand blew past the threshold. A week before that, they’d written a loan to some Amazon aggregator called Infinite Commerce down to zero in a single quarter. From par to nothing. Fortune ran the headline: the $265 billion private credit meltdown. BlackRock, Blackstone, KKR, Apollo, Ares, Blue Owl, all of them are now watching retail investors, the exact people they spent years pulling into these funds, run for the exits.

The trigger? AI exposure. These funds are loaded with loans to software companies that large language models are threatening to make obsolete. An NBER study from February found that 90% of firms reported no productivity impact from AI, even as executives kept projecting gains. The gap between hype and reality isn’t a correction. It’s the start of something much uglier.

And then there’s the macro.

Growth came in at 0.7% last quarter. Inflation is still sticky above 3%. That combination has a name, and it’s stagflation, and it has the Fed completely frozen. Cut rates and oil-fueled inflation gets worse. Hold steady and a barely-breathing economy slides into contraction. Goldman already pushed its next rate cut forecast to September. Some FOMC members are quietly floating hikes. Powell’s term ends in May. His likely replacement, Kevin Warsh, inherits an institution with no good moves left.

The politics are brutal. CNN had 60% disapproval of the war on March 2. Fox had 61% disapproving of Trump’s economic handling two days later. Republicans wanted an economic message for the midterms. Instead they’re fielding questions about gas prices from voters who were promised relief. Trump went to Ohio and Kentucky to sell the idea that things were fine before and will be fine after, but that argument requires the war to end. Nobody in the administration has said how.

They initially promised a short conflict focused on Iran’s nuclear program. The goalposts have since moved to regime change and freedom of navigation, objectives that take years, not weeks. Iran planned for exactly this. Drones and terrain have made a ground invasion essentially impossible. Air power alone has never toppled a regime. Not once.

Iran’s new Supreme Leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, pledged to keep the blockade going indefinitely. Strategic petroleum reserves are being drained at historic rates, and every analyst agrees that’s a temporary fix that solves nothing if the conflict drags on.

Three crises feeding each other. Oil strangling the real economy. Private credit unraveling underneath it. A central bank stuck between inflation it can’t tolerate and growth it can’t afford to kill. Someone asked online whether there’s a way out. Fifteen days in, the better question is whether anyone in Washington has even started looking for one.

Semafor reported that Israel warned Washington it’s running critically low on missile interceptors. Sixteen days into a joint war with Iran. Billions in American Patriot missiles already spent. The IDF denied it within hours. There is currently no problem with interceptors. We prepared for a lengthy war.

Both things can be true. And the gap between them is where the real story lives.

Netanyahu hasn’t been seen in public for over a week. His last confirmed live appearance was around March 7. Then, on March 13, a video popped up that analysts flagged as AI-generated. Six fingers on one hand. His office called it fake news and said the PM is fine. He then skipped a wartime military council meeting. During an active shooting war. With hundreds of ballistic missiles landing on Israeli cities.

So: a country burning through its defences at an unsustainable rate, and a head of state who can’t or won’t show his face. The obvious read is that Israel is in trouble, stretched thin, totally dependent on Washington. That’s true enough. But it misses what’s underneath.

The Washington Post reported on February 28 that Trump’s decision to strike Iran came after weeks of lobbying from Israel and Saudi Arabia. He didn’t enter this war because America was attacked. He entered because once Israel moved, there was no way out. And weeks before the first missiles flew, the Pentagon’s 2026 National Defense Strategy had already framed Israel as a model ally, a country that fights its own wars and therefore deserves full backing.

Think about what model ally actually means. Israel initiates. America completes. Last June, when Israeli strikes on Iranian nuclear sites fell short, American bombers finished it. When interceptor stocks ran low, American THAAD batteries picked up the slack, chewing through roughly a quarter of the entire U.S. THAAD inventory in twelve days. Now it’s happening again, bigger. Karoline Leavitt told reporters American stockpiles are more than enough to achieve Trump’s goals and beyond.

And beyond. That phrase is doing a lot of heavy lifting and nobody’s asking what it means.

War on the Rocks called it entrapment. The alliance hierarchy, inverted. Israel’s defence minister said this week that operations continue without any time limit, as long as required. Trump told reporters the end would be a mutual decision with Netanyahu. A man nobody’s seen in a week.

There’s a thesis gaining traction in European policy circles and across certain corners of the internet, and it flips the whole thing. It says Israel isn’t the tail wagging the American dog. It’s the instrument. The vehicle through which a much older American strategic vision is being carried out, one that predates this administration, this war, and this century entirely.

In 1987, a real estate developer dropped nearly $95,000 on full-page ads in The New York Times, The Washington Post, and The Boston Globe. His argument: America was being bled dry by allies too cheap to defend themselves. His name was Donald Trump. His logic hasn’t changed in forty years. What changed is that he now runs the machine.

The 2026 defence strategy says it plainly. Europe is no longer the priority. NATO allies are already sketching plans for what comes after American withdrawal. Thomas Massie introduced a bill to leave NATO, calling it a Cold War relic. Musk, now a senior advisor, has called for leaving both NATO and the UN.

The dollar’s share of global reserves just hit its lowest since 1994. The Saudis are openly flirting with non-dollar oil settlements. China and Russia already bypass it entirely. The petrodollar isn’t dead, but it’s visibly aging, and the country it props up is simultaneously picking a fight with the one adversary that can choke global oil supply through the Strait of Hormuz.

Pull back far enough and it starts to cohere. An America walking away from Europe, dismantling the post-1945 order it built, letting dollar dominance erode, and channelling what’s left of its military energy into a Middle Eastern war fought through a partner whose ammunition it controls.

Whether this traces back to a newspaper ad in 1987 or is just what happens when one man’s instincts collide with structural decline might not matter. Netanyahu, wherever he is, isn’t calling the shots. He’s operating inside someone else’s frame. And the interceptors running dry aren’t just a logistics headache. They’re a live measurement of how much sovereignty you actually have when your ammo arrives on someone else’s schedule.

Trump said the war ends soon. Katz said no time limit. Somewhere in between, a country is finding out what model ally really means.