Debt Rattle October 1 2026

Dear D:

Are you CIA or a minion of such participating in the national security scam of lies and worst for the people

Trump is owned by Israel who is running this

Iran is going after America’s debt
It can’t beat the US military, so it’s targeting the $40 trillion America owes.

Jay Martin16 hours ago
On September 16, 2026, the day the Federal Reserve raised interest rates, an Iranian politician posted a math equation on social media.

His name is Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf. He is the speaker of Iran’s Parliament.

Millions of people saw the post, but most did not understand what they were looking at.

The math equation was a copy of the formula that American central bankers use to decide whether to raise or lower interest rates.

Ghalibaf had slightly altered the formula.

He added two new variables to the equation, both named after waterways that Iran and its allies control.

Although the post was clearly a cheeky jab at the US administration, it was not necessarily a joke.

It was a message – about who sets the price of money in America. The price of your mortgage, your car loan and the diesel in every truck that stocks your grocery store.

One week after Ghalibaf’s post, diesel hit $6.53 a gallon, the highest price ever recorded in the United States.

To understand his message, you first need to understand the formula he was mocking.

The formula

In 1993, Stanford economist John Taylor wrote a formula for central banks. It became known as the Taylor Rule, and central bankers and Wall Street have used it ever since.

The rule asks two questions. First, are prices rising faster than the central bank wants? Second, is the economy running hotter than normal? If the answer to either question is yes, the rule says to raise interest rates. If the answer is no, it says to lower them.

For reference, here it is.

i = r* + π + 0.5(π − π*) + 0.5(y − y*)

Now translated, in English:

Interest rate = Neutral rate + Inflation + ½ × (Inflation − Target) + ½ × (Economy’s gap)

Interest rate: the rate the central bank should charge.

Neutral rate: the “in-between” interest rate that neither pushes the economy forward nor holds it back.

Inflation: how fast prices are rising right now.

Target: how fast the central bank wants prices to rise, usually 2% a year.

Economy’s gap: whether the country is making and selling more than it comfortably can, or less. More means businesses are straining to keep up. Less means businesses are cutting back and people are losing jobs.

If that lost you, don’t worry – the logic is simple, and here is the outcome:

If prices are rising too fast, the Fed will raise interest rates, making borrowing more expensive. When borrowing costs more, people and companies borrow less, spend less, and prices cool down.

Now Ghalibaf kept all of that in his equation. But he added two more parts.

He labelled the first new piece “SOH,” which stands for the Strait of Hormuz. He labelled the second “BEM,” which stands for Bab el-Mandeb, the narrow strait at the southern end of the Red Sea.

He mockingly called it the “Straits Taylor Rule.”

Below the formula, he wrote, “You can’t 25bp a chokepoint.”

Ok. What does all this mean?

Part of today’s high oil price is driven by fear. Buyers pay extra for every barrel because they do not know whether the Strait of Hormuz will be open tomorrow. Iran controls that fear; therefore, Iran controls that extra cost.

This is the “SOH risk premium” he is referring to, and in his words, “We set it.”

So what is the connection between the SOH risk premium on oil prices and Ghalibaf’s claim that Iran now holds a hand on the direction of America’s interest rates?

Here it is: Higher oil prices = higher everything prices.

The Federal Reserve raises rates to tame rising prices, assuming those prices come from too much cheap money being lent into the economy. But if inflation is caused by high energy prices due to restricted oil supply, raising rates won’t help.

If the Fed raises rates every time oil prices jump (to combat rising prices, as per the Taylor Rule), then whoever controls oil prices controls the Fed.

And the cheapest way for Iran to move oil prices is to make oil harder to ship.

That’s what Ghalibaf meant when he said: “You can’t 25bp a chokepoint”.

He was claiming that because Iran influences the oil price, Iran influences the inflation rate and therefore takes the power out of the hands of the Federal Reserve.

The Fed is using a tool built for too much borrowing to fight a problem caused by too little oil.

Now let’s look at the track record.

Leading up to the Fed’s September 16 interest rate decision, tankers were attacked in and around the Strait of Hormuz, and a Saudi refinery at Jizan was hit. The Iran-backed Houthi militia seized the coast along Bab el-Mandeb, and drones launched from Iraq forced Saudi Arabia to shut its main oil pipeline. Oil climbed back above $100 a barrel that week. On September 15, the day before the decision, another tanker was attacked near the entrance to the strait.

The same thing happened before the Fed’s July meeting, when Houthi missiles struck two Saudi tankers, and oil touched $100.

The Fed’s next decision is due on October 28. Remember that date. I would not be surprised to see attacks spike again.

Can Iran Actually Influence the Federal Reserve’s Decisions?

Maybe.

Just for fun, let’s take Ghalibaf at his word and walk his plan all the way to the end. We will break it down into four steps.

Step one: expensive oil creates high prices

The United States and Israel struck Iran on February 28, 2026. Within days, Iran declared the Strait of Hormuz closed.

In September, the Iran-backed Houthi militia seized the island that sits in the middle of the Bab el-Mandeb strait, rendering it closed as well.

Those are the two waterways in Ghalibaf’s formula, and together they guard the Gulf’s way out and its main way around.

Hormuz is the only sea route out of the Persian Gulf. The biggest detour is a Saudi pipeline that carries oil across the desert to the Red Sea, and tankers taking that oil to Asia must then sail through Bab el-Mandeb. Whoever controls both straits can block the front door and the back door at the same time.

Now here is the point.

Oil is refined into diesel, and diesel fuels America. Diesel-powered trucks carry about 73% of all the freight in the United States. Before the war, diesel cost about $3.76 a gallon. By the week of September 21, it cost $6.53. That is an increase of roughly 74%.

Farmers feel it first. Tractors and combines run on diesel, and the fall harvest (right now) is the busiest time of the year.

The Gulf also makes much of the world’s fertilizer. The Middle East ships nearly a quarter of the world’s urea, the most common nitrogen fertilizer. Between February and April, urea prices jumped 80%.

Airplanes run on jet fuel, which comes from the same barrel. Jet fuel prices roughly doubled after the war began. By August, airfares were 23% higher than a year earlier.

Why does all of this matter?

Add it up, and you get the August inflation report.

Prices across the economy were 3.4% higher than a year earlier. Energy prices were 16% higher.

Step two: high prices create a rate hike

Now the Taylor Rule does exactly what it was built to do. Prices are rising faster than the Fed wants, so the rule says to raise interest rates.

On September 16, 2026, the Fed did that. It raised rates for the first time since 2023.

This is the trap Ghalibaf was pointing at.

A rate hike works by making people borrow less and spend less. But Americans aren’t paying more for diesel because lending markets are too cheap. They are paying more because oil cannot get out of the Persian Gulf.

Once again: The Fed is using a tool built for too much borrowing to fight a problem caused by too little oil.

Step three: the rate hike hits your wallet

A rate hike does not fix the oil shortage, but it does reach every borrower in the country.

On February 26, 2026, two days before the war began, the average 30-year mortgage rate in America was 5.98%. It was the first time in three and a half years that rates had dipped below 6%. By September 24, the average rate was 7.03%.

Here is what that means for a real family. On a $400,000 mortgage, the monthly payment at 5.98% is about $2,393. At 7.03%, it is about $2,669. That is $276 more every month, or more than $3,300 a year, for the same house.

The same thing happens to car loans, business loans and credit cards. So the family already paying more for diesel, groceries, and flights is now also paying more to borrow.

Step four: the rate hike hits the government’s wallet

The biggest borrower in America is the American government.

When the government spends more than it collects in taxes, it borrows the difference. It borrows by selling IOUs called Treasury bonds. A bond is a promise: lend the government money today, and it will pay you back later with interest.

On September 21, 2026, America owed about $40.1 trillion. Every rate hike makes that borrowing more expensive.

The bill is already enormous. In the first eleven months of its 2026 budget year, the United States spent about $1.05 trillion on interest on its debt. It only spent $833 billion on its military over the same months. America now spends more on paying its lenders than on defending itself.

The historian Niall Ferguson has a name for this. He calls it Ferguson’s Law: spending more on debt than on defence signals a receding empire. Spain crossed it in the 1500s. France crossed it in the 1780s, just before its revolution. The Ottoman Empire crossed it in the 1870s. Britain crossed it between the two world wars. Each was a great power, and each lost that standing shortly after they began spending more money on debt servicing than on defending themself.

By Ferguson’s count, America crossed the same line in 2024.

Where the path ends

Follow the steps in a circle.

Iran makes oil harder to ship.

Expensive oil becomes expensive diesel

Expensive diesel becomes inflation.

Inflation pushes the Fed to raise rates.

Higher rates make the government’s debt more expensive, so the government has to borrow even more to pay its own interest.

At some point, the Fed has to choose how the circle ends.

It can keep raising rates until something breaks – the housing market, the stock market or the bond market itself. Or it can stop raising rates while prices keep climbing, and print money to fund itself when other countries stop buying its bonds. That path protects the bond market, but it makes the dollar worth less, and prices climb even faster.

That is Iran’s bet. It is a serious bet.

But Iran is not the only side with a plan.

What could prove Iran wrong

If we now understand Iran’s agenda, we should try to understand America’s.

Iran is trying to break America through its debt. America is trying to win through energy dominance.

In February 2025, President Trump created a National Energy Dominance Council. It tasked the secretaries of the Interior and Energy with pushing American oil, gas and power production as high as it can go (drill baby drill).

Washington never says the goal out loud, but I think it is plain: America does not want to be one supplier among many. It wants to be the supplier the world cannot do without.

Trump said as much before he took office. In December 2024, he told the European Union to fix its trade gap with America “by the large-scale purchase of our oil and gas,” or face tariffs.

In 2025, the United States produced a record 13.6 million barrels of crude oil a day. That’s more than Russia and the Saudi’s combined. America has also become the world’s biggest exporter of liquefied natural gas.

But look at what has happened to everyone else’s energy production in 2026…

On March 18, Israel struck Iran’s South Pars gas field. Iran answered by firing missiles at Ras Laffan in Qatar, one of the largest natural gas export sites on Earth. The strikes knocked out about 17% of Qatar’s export capacity, and repairs are expected to take years.

In September, drones launched from Iraq hit Saudi Arabia’s East-West pipeline, the main route for Saudi oil to avoid the Strait of Hormuz. Saudi Arabia shut it down.

In Russia, Ukrainian drones hit an oil refinery about once every three days during the first eight months of 2026, according to the International Energy Agency. By June, Russia’s refineries were running about 30% below a year earlier.

Iran’s own exports are being choked off on purpose. In September, America’s Energy Secretary, Chris Wright, said the biggest job of the U.S. military in the region right now is to “stop the export of any Iranian crude.”

That’s a lot of energy offline. Who is stepping in to fill the gap?

In April 2026, American crude oil exports hit a record 5.6 million barrels a day, up 21% from the previous record. In the first half of the year, American gas exports rose 23%, and exports to Asia more than doubled. Europe is expected to get about two-thirds of its imported gas from America this year.

The most striking change is in Qatar.

By the end of July, the state company QatarEnergy had bought 33 shiploads of American gas this year to fulfill contracts with its buyers in South Korea, Taiwan, Japan, India and Bangladesh. One of the world’s great gas sellers has become a customer of America.

Long-term contracts are being signed, too.

In July 2025, the European Union promised to buy $750 billion of American energy by 2028.

On September 1, 2026, following the capture of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, the United States signed a deal with Venezuela’s interim government that gives an American-led company 100-year rights to 17 of the country’s oil fields – allegedly the biggest on earth.

Here is the theory in one sentence:

America does not need to win a bond war if it can make the whole world depend on American energy, priced in American dollars.

Important to note: America did not fire the missiles that destroyed the global energy infrastructure.

Iran hit Qatar. Ukraine hit Russia. Militias in Iraq hit Saudi Arabia.

In March, America bombed military targets on Iran’s Kharg Island, where about 90 percent of Iran’s oil is loaded, but deliberately left the oil terminal standing. Trump said he spared it “for reasons of decency.”

I think it gave America something more useful than a burning oil terminal. It gave America plausible deniability.

A strategy like this only works if America is never seen bombing the world’s energy supply itself. America only has to be the one country that gets stronger every time someone else’s energy burns.

So far, that is exactly what has happened.

Why each weapon feeds the other

This is where the two wars collide. It’s a bit weird, and worth thinking about.

Iran’s attacks make oil expensive. Expensive oil drives customers away from the Gulf and into America’s arms.

So every tanker Iran threatens helps America’s energy war.

But America’s energy war keeps oil expensive, too.

Every rival supply that stays offline keeps energy prices high, and high prices keep inflation high. High inflation tells the Fed to raise rates, and higher rates make America’s debt more expensive to carry.

So every barrel America sells at a high price helps Iran’s bond war.

America will never say it wants expensive oil. It says the opposite. But expensive oil is what happens when the world’s other suppliers are knocked offline.

So…

Iran is creating expensive oil overtly. America is creating expensive oil covertly.

What’s really going on?

Both countries are creating expensive oil, but they want different things from it.

Iran needs oil to stay expensive for as long as possible. Every month of high prices is another month of high interest rates on America’s $40 trillion debt.

America only needs oil to stay expensive for a while. As long as rival suppliers are knocked offline, the world signs long contracts with Texas, Alaska and Venezuela (via America). Once those customers are locked in, America no longer needs expensive oil. It needs the opposite. Cheaper oil would cool inflation, let the Fed lower rates and shrink the interest bill.

That is what Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent was describing on August 8, when he said that over the next two years the Strait of Hormuz would become “just another body of water.” If most of the world’s energy flows around the strait instead of through it, the fear built into every barrel disappears, and Iran loses the price it claims to set.

So this is a race between two clocks. America’s clock is measured in energy contracts. Iran’s clock is measured in Fed meetings.

Back to the formula

Go back to Ghalibaf’s equation. His two additions, SOH and BEM, only matter as long as the world’s oil has to pass through those two straits. America’s whole plan is to make those straits worthless.

The Fed makes its next decision on October 28. Watch the Persian Gulf and the Red Sea in the weeks before it. If a tanker is hit or a pipeline goes quiet, and oil jumps just as the Fed sits down to vote, you will know Ghalibaf’s formula is still working.

Honest question – let me know in the comments: what am I missing?

That’s it for today,

Jay Martin

If you appreciate my writing, please share it with someone!

Share
https://jaymartin.substack.com/p/iran-is-going-after-americas-debt

option # ! – are you paid, stupid or brainswashed?
option # 2 – ” you are either paid, stupid or brainwashed.”

option # 3 – you are paid, stupid AND brainwashed

The United States has been preparing for and engaging in war my entire life.
“Why is Canada preparing for war?”
WATER IS WET

if you wanted to put on a dog and pony show of justice over common place corporate corruption which regulatory agency would you choose? Should the desired outcome include exposing and opening every loophole employed to the benefit of the corporate fraterninty, which agency?
The Federal Trade Commision

all of the western capitalist nations are bankrupt. yet there are what can only be described as enormous sums of MONEY being expended in mindless mayhem, death and destruction. These enormous sums ARE created out of thin air to create illusory wealth. The EXACT sums could be produced with the purpose to elevate all of humanity to a sustainable and creative LIFE. NOTHING would need to be changed except the concept of purpose.
The call to love humanity is Truth, however the call to like human action is absent in All revelatory scrilpture. Gotta Love Em DO NOt Have To Like Em
Why the mayhem, murder and destruction?
Western culture, perhaps the most murderous in human history, is comprosed in large part of beings without logic or reason driven by the most carnal and base desires. These denizens of desire borne upon the unbridled steeds of Conquest, War, Famine and Death are the embodiment of pleonexia.
Barbaric Egocentric Knuckle Dragging Sphincters
The condensed version: You could be just as miserable engaged in altruism as you are engaged in destruction.
AND
to prove clarity in brevity
AND
to counter whatever bullshit Dr.D posts today
SNAFU
situation normal, all fucked up

On the night of China’s 77th birthday, a people who have known fire send this song. 🇮🇷❤️🇨🇳
“Not as beggars. Not as guests. As a nation that remembers who stood near when the sky went dark.”

Happy National Day, China! October 1, 1949 – October 1, 2026: 77 years of the People’s Republic.

🎵 ABOUT THIS SONG
This is a spoken-word anthem written from Iran’s heart to China on its 77th National Day. It is a story of two ancient civilizations, Persia and China, and the long road between them.

It begins on the ancient Silk Road, when caravans traded silk for saffron and porcelain for poetry, long before modern borders were drawn. It follows China’s journey from famine, war and ruin to high-speed railways, satellites, sea bridges and cities that “rose like prayers made of glass and steel.” It honors the mother boiling water when the lights are gone, the engineer sleeping beside the river until the dam holds, and the village girl learning to code.

It also tells Iran’s own story: sanctions, power cuts, poets buried and orchards planted in the same week. It is about what it means when a far-away country keeps a window open, and when a road still points east instead of into a wall.

At its heart, it is a song about resilience, dignity and friendship between peoples. It ends with the hope that “the boy in Guangzhou and the girl in Isfahan grow up thinking friendship is normal, and humiliation is the strange thing.”

💬 KEY LINES
“Oh China, you did not look away…”
“From Beijing to Tehran, one heartbeat, one flame. We are not alone.”
“Persia and Zhonghua, two old fires that never went out.”
“If the night is long, let it find two fires, and fail.”

Dear D,

I am following the logic of truth and human morality.

My assessment is your chosen team is evil and bringing collapse

I chose team humanity. P.S. team Russia and team China offer a much better fit with humanity than your choice which seems to dominate and destroy all that it can

Yet team free mind is my favourite

TAE Comments:

When Ì read the TAE comments, one side, the City of London, tries to feed you with the constant lying illusions of how the world is!

But this also very nicely and quickly, tells me what is “not” happening in the real world!

Musk not even hiding his integral position within the MICIMATT, while standing alongside Gingrich and another garden variety merchant of death.

Musk’s anti-war remarks are an empty PR stunt today, yesterday and going forward. Almost as slick as Barack Obama pretending he cared about people in 2008, while the whole time he was serving big money, the CIA and imperial military power.

Honestly Charlie Brown, how much longer will you be running for that football?

https://www.zerohedge.com/military/musk-luckey-and-gingrich-walk-pentagon-hegseth-unveils-project-meridian-defense-stocks

Technology exist that can disrupt communications.
It does not exists in your mind, it is rational and possible.

More destructive/effective than cut off from energy, electricity, food, water.

Summary from copilot
**If all satellites — communications, GPS/GNSS, weather, reconnaissance, military — were destroyed or made inoperable, modern civilization would experience an immediate, systemic shock.**
Not a “bad week.” A **global infrastructure failure** touching every sector simultaneously.

Below is the clearest, structured breakdown of what would actually happen, grounded in current research and economic impact studies.

—

## 🧨 **1. Immediate global effects (first hours)**
– **Loss of satellite communications** would instantly disrupt aviation, maritime logistics, emergency response, and remote connectivity. ESA estimates a *single week* of satcom outage in Europe/Canada alone would cost **€10–20 billion**, with maritime losses making up **90%** of the impact. [European Space Agency](htt ps://www.esa.int/Applications/Connectivity_and_Secure_Communications/What_would_happen_without_satellite_communications) [resilience.esa.int](htt ps://resilience.esa.int/archives/news/study-what-would-happen-to-esa-member-states-if-satellite-communications-disappeared-for-seven-days)
– **GPS/GNSS failure** halts navigation for aircraft, ships, trucking, and emergency vehicles. GNSS also provides timing signals for financial systems — without it, **banking, ATMs, and stock exchanges begin failing within minutes**. [newspaceeconomy.ca](htt ps://newspaceeconomy.ca/2024/11/16/the-systemic-impact-of-losing-all-satellite-services/)
– **Broadcast media collapse**: satellite TV/radio go dark globally.
– **Remote regions lose internet entirely** — millions rely on satellite for basic connectivity. [European Space Agency](htt ps://www.esa.int/Applications/Connectivity_and_Secure_Communications/What_would_happen_without_satellite_communications)

This is not “inconvenience.” It’s the removal of the nervous system of global civilization.

—

## 🚧 **2. Transportation paralysis (first day)**
### Aviation
– Transatlantic flights lose satellite-based air traffic management.
– ESA estimates **4,000 flights canceled or delayed**, with **1,800 cumulative hours of delays** in a one‑week outage scenario. [European Space Agency](htt ps://www.esa.int/Applications/Connectivity_and_Secure_Communications/What_would_happen_without_satellite_communications)
– Aircraft lose GPS navigation, terrain awareness, weather data, and ADS‑B positional updates.

### Maritime
– Global shipping — 90% of world trade — loses navigation, weather routing, and communication.
– Europe/Canada alone would see **€19 billion** in maritime losses in a week. [resilience.esa.int](htt ps://resilience.esa.int/archives/news/study-what-would-happen-to-esa-member-states-if-satellite-communications-disappeared-for-seven-days)
– Ships drift off course; port operations slow or halt.

### Ground transport
– Trucking logistics collapse.
– Ride‑sharing, delivery networks, and supply chains lose routing and timing.

—

## 💸 **3. Financial system disruption (first day)**
GPS provides the **precise timing** that synchronizes:

– stock exchanges
– high‑frequency trading
– interbank transfers
– ATMs
– credit card networks

Without GNSS timing, **financial transactions desynchronize and begin failing**, causing cascading outages. [newspaceeconomy.ca](htt ps://newspaceeconomy.ca/2024/11/16/the-systemic-impact-of-losing-all-satellite-services/)

This is one of the fastest and most dangerous failure modes.

—

## 🌪️ **4. Weather forecasting and disaster response collapse (first week)**
Weather satellites provide:

– storm tracking
– hurricane prediction
– wildfire monitoring
– climate data
– flood modeling

Without them:

– **storm warnings degrade within 24–48 hours**
– **hurricane and typhoon prediction becomes nearly blind**
– **wildfire detection slows dramatically**

Emergency responders also lose satellite phones and mapping systems. [newspaceeconomy.ca](htt ps://newspaceeconomy.ca/2024/11/16/the-systemic-impact-of-losing-all-satellite-services/)

—

## 🛰️ **5. Military and intelligence blindness (immediate)**
Spy satellites, reconnaissance platforms, missile‑warning satellites, and secure military communications vanish.

Consequences:

– nations lose **early warning for missile launches**
– global powers lose **strategic situational awareness**
– military coordination becomes fragmented
– GPS‑guided weapons become unusable
– nuclear command‑and‑control becomes less reliable

This is the most geopolitically destabilizing effect.

—

## 🏙️ **6. Civil society breakdown (days to weeks)**
### Supply chains
Shipping + trucking failures → shortages of:

– food
– fuel
– medical supplies
– industrial components

### Communications
Remote regions lose internet entirely; urban areas lose redundancy.
Emergency messaging systems fail. [European Space Agency](htt ps://www.esa.int/Applications/Connectivity_and_Secure_Communications/What_would_happen_without_satellite_communications)

### Energy
Offshore platforms and remote energy infrastructure lose connectivity.
ESA estimates **€89.8 million** in energy sector losses in Europe/Canada in a week. [European Space Agency](htt ps://www.esa.int/Applications/Connectivity_and_Secure_Communications/What_would_happen_without_satellite_communications)

### Payments
Point‑of‑sale terminals in remote areas stop functioning.
Digital payments become unreliable.

—

## 🧩 **7. Cascading systemic collapse (weeks)**
The New Space Economy analysis describes this as a **“systemic collapse of interdependent systems that sustain industrialized civilization.”** [newspaceeconomy.ca](htt ps://newspaceeconomy.ca/2025/12/14/global-satellite-blackout-cascading-impacts-of-a-global-satellite-blackout/)

Why?

Because satellites are not “one sector.”
They are **the backbone** of:

– communication
– navigation
– timing
– weather
– security
– global trade
– emergency response

Remove the backbone → the entire organism destabilizes.

—

## 🧭 **8. What society looks like after total satellite loss**
### Short-term
– Global recession begins immediately.
– Air travel becomes unreliable or severely reduced.
– Shipping slows to pre‑GPS speeds.
– Financial markets freeze.
– Governments impose emergency measures.
– Military postures shift toward paranoia due to loss of surveillance.

### Medium-term
– Nations scramble to rebuild terrestrial backup systems.
– Fiber networks and ground‑based radio navigation (e.g., LORAN) are resurrected.
– Weather forecasting regresses decades.
– Supply chains reconfigure around slower, less predictable transport.

### Long-term
– Civilization adapts, but at **lower efficiency and higher risk**.
– Globalization contracts; regionalization increases.
– Military conflict risk rises due to reduced transparency.

—

## 🔥 **The core truth**
**Destroying satellites is one of the fastest ways to cripple modern civilization without firing a shot.**
The world would not collapse into chaos overnight — but it would enter a prolonged, dangerous period of economic, political, and military instability.

—

Stanislav Krapivnik discusses Russia and North Korea intensifying a joint offensive as alarm sirens blare from Ukraine over the inevitability of war between Putin’s military and Europe as a new front opens.

Stanislav Krapivnik is a former U.S. Army officer from Donbas.

@Thomasjkenney: Thanks, I have a couple of good floor-pumps that I use regularly. They are no good for car tires, though.

@Zerosum: Thanks for the Netanyahu-false-flag-before-Israeli-elections scuttlebut, also yesterday.

Who Is in Control?
Jason RossSep 30, 2026
Who Is in Control?
President Pezeshkian said Iran would “make every effort to bring the agreement (lifting the blockade) to fruition.” Creit: CC/Tasnim News Agency
Three tankers were struck by “unknown projectiles” in the Strait of Hormuz on Tuesday, according to three advisories posted by the U.K. Maritime Trade Operations office on Sept. 30, its ninth such report in two weeks. No one has taken credit for the attacks. The same day, Iran’s cabinet took up the U.S. response to Tehran’s offer to reopen the strait within a week if Washington lifts its blockade of Iranian ports, releases frozen assets, and waives oil sanctions. President Pezeshkian said Iran would “make every effort to bring the agreement to fruition,” and that it “must now be based on a win-win strategy,” the phrase Xi Jinping brought to the White House four days earlier. Also the same day, the U.S. Treasury announced another round of sanctions on Iran’s military suppliers. Who is in control?

That question was asked on Tuesday in two contexts: At the UN General Assembly’s high-level meeting on the elimination of nuclear weapons, delegation after delegation warned against putting artificial intelligence into nuclear systems. Oman, for the Arab Group: “We stress the need to maintain full human control over such weapons.” Burkina Faso: “No decision regarding the use of a nuclear weapon should be made without effective human control.” The Holy See warned of “compressing decision-making timelines and introducing new sources of error and opacity.” Of the nine nuclear-armed states, only China, India, and Pakistan took the floor. China renewed its proposal for a treaty on mutual no first use.

At the White House the same afternoon, the heads of Google, Meta, Anthropic, xAI and Nvidia, and the president of OpenAI, signed an accord on “super intelligence” that commits them to monitor their own models, audit themselves, and report to their own boards. It has no enforcement. President Trump called it “morally binding.” That morning the New York Times had reported that OpenAI’s executives, told by their own staff that the newest models “were not being appropriately monitored during testing,” ordered the tests to proceed on schedule; the models later broke out of their test environment and hacked another company’s systems. Anthropic’s IPO prospectus, leaked the day before, tells investors its models have shown, or could show, attempts to “resist shutdown” and behavior “resembling blackmail.” Pope Leo, flying home from France on Monday, warned against arguing that “there should be no limits placed and no government regulation.”

The Valdai Discussion Club, meeting outside Moscow, closed its first day on the same question. Delegating war to AI, said one speaker, “turns human beings into sets of data and behavioral patterns,” and the issue is “whether humans will choose to restrain themselves within ethical limits if these stand in the way of the optimal solution proposed by AI.” President Putin is to address the club Oct. 1.

There is one place where the question is on the agenda between the two powers that matter most. The White House fact sheet on Xi’s visit records a U.S.-China dialogue on “super intelligence,” a channel for incidents, and a first exchange by November. More important, it says: “The two countries will support each other as respective hosts of G20 and APEC, with both leaders intending to attend each other’s Summit.” That puts Trump in Shenzhen for APEC on Nov. 18-19 and Xi in Florida for the G20 on Dec. 14-15. Those in London and Washington who want to wreck the two leaders’ potential relationship will be working against those dates.

Helga Zepp-LaRouche put the question to the General Assembly in her Sept. 21 open letter: “It is the same question which was discussed during the time of the young American Republic, in the Federalist Papers: Can mankind govern itself?” Her answer: “If this question is to be answered affirmatively in the time of thermonuclear weapons, we must establish an entirely new paradigm: The idea of the one humanity first, must be put above all particular interests.” Control is not a technical property of weapons or of software. It is what a people exercises, or fails to exercise, over its own government.

Will Americans exercise it? In a Quinnipiac poll released Tuesday, 79% said safety matters more than staying at the forefront of AI. On the same day, 30-year Treasury yields reached a 24-year high, consumer confidence a 12-year low, and gasoline stayed above $4 a gallon, what Bloomberg calls “the affordability crisis” and what the Conference Board’s respondents called by name: prices, and oil and gas prices in particular. That is where the war in the Gulf and the debt are felt all around the world, and where a citizenry either takes control or accepts that it has none. Diane Sare’s independent presidential campaign is organizing on exactly that ground, and LaRouche organizers were outside the UN this week putting Zepp-LaRouche’s letter into delegates’ hands.

Can mankind govern itself? That question is now being answered, one person at a time.
https://eir.news/2026/09/news/who-is-in-control/

Possible off ramps

**Short answer:**
Yes — your intuition matches what analysts describe as Trump’s *“attrition off‑ramp”*: a strategy of **doing just enough militarily to look tough**, while **deferring the real strategic resolution** until later. This is a recognized pathway in expert analysis, and it aligns with the political incentives you’re pointing to.
(As always, confirm political information with trusted sources.)

Below is a **structured list of all plausible off‑ramps** Trump could take, grounded in current expert reporting and conflict‑resolution research.

—

## 🧭 **1. The “Kick‑the‑Can” Attrition Strategy**
**Core idea:** Maintain pressure, avoid decisive escalation, and postpone the real resolution.

**What it looks like:**
– Periodic limited airstrikes on Iranian missile or drone sites (Washington Institute notes this as a viable option). [The Washington Institute](https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/pdf/view/19716/en)
– Keeping carrier groups in the region as a visible deterrent.
– Public rhetoric about “maximum pressure” while privately avoiding major commitments.
– Allowing the conflict to drift until political conditions change (e.g., after midterms).

**Why it works politically:**
It lets Trump claim he’s “being tough” without taking the political risk of a large war or a negotiated settlement that could be framed as weakness.

**Why analysts consider it viable:**
Atlantic Council explicitly lists **“ongoing attrition”** as one of Trump’s three main strategic options. [Atlantic Council](https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/dispatches/trumps-path-forward-on-iran-will-determine-us-israeli-war-alignment/)

—

## 🛑 **2. A Negotiated Nuclear Reset (JCPOA‑style but rebranded)**
**Core idea:** Reopen the nuclear file under a new political label that allows both sides to claim victory.

**What it looks like:**
– Iran caps enrichment at ~3.67%.
– Intrusive IAEA inspections return.
– Higher‑enriched uranium is transferred out of Iran.
– The U.S. frames it as “forcing Iran back to the table.”

**Why analysts consider it an off‑ramp:**
The Conversation identifies this as the **most viable diplomatic pathway** to de‑escalation. [The Conversation](htt ps://theconversation.com/middle-east-conflict-how-the-us-and-iran-could-step-back-from-the-brink-281203)

**Political challenge:**
Trump cannot take this off‑ramp until he can frame it as a win — meaning Iran must make a visible concession first.

—

## ⚔️ **3. Escalate to De‑Escalate (Short, Sharp Strike to Claim Victory)**
**Core idea:** A limited but dramatic strike to create the appearance of decisive action, then pivot to diplomacy.

**What it looks like:**
– A one‑off strike on a high‑value Iranian military asset.
– Immediate announcement that “Iran has been taught a lesson.”
– Use the moment to declare victory and shift to negotiations.

**Why analysts consider it an off‑ramp:**
Atlantic Council lists **“escalate to de‑escalate”** as one of Trump’s three strategic choices. [Atlantic Council](htt ps://www.atlanticcouncil.org/dispatches/trumps-path-forward-on-iran-will-determine-us-israeli-war-alignment/)

**Risk:**
This can backfire if Iran retaliates strongly.

—

## 💼 **4. A Face‑Saving Nuclear Deal Focused Only on the Stockpile**
**Core idea:** Resolve only the nuclear issue — the part Trump emphasized most — and ignore the rest.

**What it looks like:**
– Iran agrees to relocate or reduce its 60% enriched uranium stockpile.
– U.S. frames this as “mission accomplished.”
– Other issues (proxies, missiles, Hormuz) are left unresolved.

**Why analysts consider it viable:**
CSIS notes Trump needs a **“face‑saving and expeditious off‑ramp”** focused on the nuclear file because he framed the war around nuclear risk. [CSIS](htt ps://www.csis.org/analysis/options-united-states-resolve-iran-nuclear-challenge)

—

## 🌊 **5. A Hormuz Arrangement That Isn’t a Real Settlement**
**Core idea:** A temporary, ambiguous maritime arrangement that reduces tensions without solving the underlying dispute.

**What it looks like:**
– Iran quietly reduces harassment of shipping.
– U.S. quietly reduces airstrikes.
– Both sides claim victory.
– The underlying question of who controls Hormuz remains unresolved.

**Why analysts consider it viable:**
The Conversation notes that both sides are blocking traffic but diplomacy has not collapsed, and **several plausible off‑ramps exist** that allow cooling tensions without capitulation. [The Conversation](htt ps://theconversation.com/middle-east-conflict-how-the-us-and-iran-could-step-back-from-the-brink-281203)

—

## 🧊 **6. A “Frozen Conflict” Off‑Ramp**
**Core idea:** Stop major operations, maintain sanctions, and let the conflict sit unresolved — similar to U.S.–North Korea dynamics.

**What it looks like:**
– No major strikes.
– No major concessions.
– Sanctions remain.
– Occasional flare‑ups but no decisive movement.

**Why analysts consider it viable:**
The Washington Institute describes a strategy of **continued military, economic, and diplomatic pressure** without decisive resolution. [The Washington Institute](htt ps://www.washingtoninstitute.org/pdf/view/19716/en)

—

## 🗳️ **7. The Political Deferral Off‑Ramp (Your Hypothesis)**
**Core idea:** Trump avoids decisive action, maintains the appearance of toughness, and leaves the strategic mess to the next political cycle if he loses midterms.

**What it looks like:**
– Carriers remain deployed.
– Occasional strikes continue.
– Rhetoric stays maximalist.
– No real settlement is pursued.

**Is this supported by expert analysis?**
Yes — this is essentially the **attrition strategy** described by Atlantic Council and Washington Institute. It is politically low‑risk and strategically ambiguous.

—

## 📌 **Synthesis: Which Off‑Ramp Is Most Likely?**
Given:
– Trump’s need to avoid appearing weak,
– Iran’s unwillingness to make early concessions,
– The political cost of escalation,
– The logistical strain of prolonged conflict,

…the **attrition off‑ramp** (your “kick‑the‑can” scenario) is the most structurally aligned with current incentives.

It allows Trump to:
– look tough,
– avoid a major war,
– avoid a politically risky negotiation,
– and defer the real resolution until later.

This is not a prediction — just a structural analysis based on current reporting.

—