The biggest aluminum smelter in the world is the Huomei Hongjun Aluminium Smelter located in China, with a production capacity of 1,060,000 tonnes per year. Following it are the Dubai Aluminium Co (Dubal) and Krasnoyarsk Aluminium Works in Russia. Wikipedia gulfbusiness.com
Gulf States:
The Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) region has become a global hub for aluminium production, thanks to its abundant natural resources, strategic location, and cutting-edge facilities. aluminium production plays a vital role in the region’s economy, contributing significantly to exports, industrial development, and diversification strategies, particularly in countries like the UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Bahrain.
Below, we look at the top 10 aluminium companies in the GCC that are driving the industry forward.
Company initiates controlled shutdown of Lines 1, 2 and 3
Prioritises use of raw material stocks for Lines 4, 5 and 6
Alba has aluminium smelting capacity of 1.62 million tons/yr
March 15 (Reuters) – Aluminium Bahrain (ALBH.BH), opens new tab, known as Alba, said on Sunday it had initiated a shutdown of three aluminium smelting lines accounting for 19% of its capacity to preserve business continuity amid ongoing disruption in the Strait of Hormuz.
The closures are the latest impact on the Middle East aluminium sector, which accounts for around 9% of global supply, from the U.S.-Israeli war on Iran. Fears of shortages propelled London Metal Exchange aluminium to a nearly four-year high of $3,546.50 per metric ton on Thursday.
Huomei Hongjun Aluminum and Electricity Company has built the country’s first automatic production line for aluminium ingot casting, which automates slag breaking, ingot casting, packaging, weighing, and other processes. The announcement was made by Liu Ruihong, Secretary of the Party Committee of Inner Mongolia Huomei Hongjun Aluminium Electric. Huomei Hongjun Aluminium & Electricity has played the two cards of “green aluminium” and “smart factory” in recent years, accelerating the transition to low-carbon, clean, and intelligent, making the aluminium industry bigger and stronger, and creating clean production in the aluminium industry model.
Oil explosions can release harmful pollutants into the air, including volatile organic compounds, sulfur dioxide, and particulate matter, which can lead to serious health issues for nearby communities. These emissions can contribute to respiratory problems, cardiovascular diseases, and even cancer due to long-term exposure to toxic substances. National Wildlife Federation sciencemediacentre.org
And
Bombing of Iran’s oil infrastructure to have major environmental fallout, experts warn
Monitors admit they are struggling to keep track of the environmental disasters arising from widening war
Israel’s bombing of Iran’s oil infrastructure will have major long-term environmental repercussions, experts have warned, as monitors admitted they were struggling to keep track of the environmental disasters arising from the widening war.
Even as Iranians filled the streets to mark the appointment of a new supreme leader, the Shahran oil depot north-east of Tehran and the Shahr-e fuel depot to its south continued to burn on Monday, two days after they were bombed by Israeli warplanes.
In the immediate aftermath of the attacks, Iran’s environmental agency and the Iranian Red Crescent Society had warned Tehran residents to stay at home, warning the toxic chemicals spread by airstrikes on five fossil fuel installations around the city could lead to acid rain and damage the skin and lungs.
On Monday, the head of the World Health Organization, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, said: “Damage to petroleum facilities in Iran risks contaminating food, water and air – hazards that can have severe health impacts especially on children, older people, and people with pre-existing medical conditions.”
Understanding the multifaceted humanitarian challenges of the Gulf War reveals vital lessons about warfare’s far-reaching consequences, emphasizing the importance of global responses, ethical considerations, and sustained recovery efforts in future military conflicts.
Conflict in the Strait of Hormuz is spilling into the Indian Ocean
The effective blockade of the strait during the US-Israeli war with Iran has increased the chance of accidents and forced ships into alternative routes with their own risks.
The US-Israeli war with Iran has turned the Indian Ocean into a theatre for major maritime confrontations.
On 2 March, in response to US-Israeli strikes, Iran announced it was closing the Strait of Hormuz, the vital maritime chokepoint that connects Gulf waters and the wider Indian Ocean beyond. On 4 March, a US submarine sunk the Iranian frigate IRIS Dena off the coast of Sri Lanka. Since the outbreak of the conflict, at least 18 vessels have been attacked in Gulf waters.
The US now claims Iran’s navy is destroyed. Despite this, the Strait of Hormuz remains functionally closed.
While some analysts argue that Iran lacks the power to fully control the strait, Iran’s strategy does not depend on naval control. If Iran can launch missile or drone attacks from its coast, it can impose enough risk to disrupt shipping. The recent experience in the Red Sea illustrates this dynamic: a relatively small number of Houthi missile and drone attacks caused container traffic in the region to fall by roughly 90 per cent in 2024.
Iran’s ability to essentially close the strait will have a knock-on effect on wider maritime traffic, creating new security risks as ships seek alternative routes. While Iran has vowed to disrupt international trade to inflict pressure on US President Donald Trump, the US may seek to intercept ships bound for Iran, creating dangerous conditions for escalation in the increasingly crowded Indian Ocean and beyond.
Heightened risks of accidents and US seizures
The current conflict has created a de facto blockade in which the US seeks to deny maritime transit or access to Iran, while Tehran simultaneously seeks to stop all movement through the Strait.
These competing strategies have created a highly uncertain operating environment for commercial vessels in the Gulf. According to a briefing from Lloyd’s List Intelligence, more than 40 ships disabled their Automatic Identification System (AIS) signals at the start of the conflict – a practice known as ‘going dark.’ Ships typically disable AIS to conceal illicit activity. Many of these vessels are part of Iran’s sanctioned shadow fleet. The number of dark vessels is likely to increase.
At the same time, several Gulf countries have begun employing GPS jamming to interfere with guided missiles. While intended as a defensive measure, this jamming also disrupts navigation systems used by civilian ships. AIS signals can become scrambled or unreliable, making it more difficult for vessels to communicate with each other and avoid collisions. With maritime search and rescue capabilities already constrained by the conflict, such interference significantly increases the risk of accidents.
Amid this chaos, Iran announced that it would permit Chinese ships to transit through the Strait. In response, some ships are attempting to use their transponders to identify as Chinese. For example, a Liberian-flagged bulk carrier ship called SinoOcean broadcast its destination signal as ‘CHINA OWNER_ALL CREW’ to transit the Strait of Hormuz. Related workHow will the Iran war affect the global economy?
While these operations are not necessarily aimed at illicit activity, they do represent a newer category of false flag operations in shipping, which involve the deliberate misrepresentation of a vessel’s flag state to evade oversight. This tactic is most often used by shadow fleet vessels moving sanctioned commodities. Under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, both false flags and changing a ship’s flag during a voyage are considered illegal.
Taken together, GPS jamming, dark vessels, and false flag signals create significant uncertainty about the identity and activities of ships in the region. This ambiguity complicates attribution for maritime incidents and increases the likelihood that naval forces will misinterpret commercial behaviour.
In response, it is possible that the US will pursue more ships seizures across the Indian Ocean, especially under the pretext of the ongoing conflict. On 24 February, before the attack on Iran, the US seized an oil tanker allegedly linked to Venezuela’s illicit oil trade off the coast of Sri Lanka. Back in November, the US also seized a cargo ship going from China to Iran across the Indian Ocean.
Alternative routes in a crowded ocean
The blocking of the Strait of Hormuz will redirect shipping into other routes that pose their own risks. Since 2 March, the volume of traffic around Hormuz has dropped precipitously. Many ships have also decided to avoid the Suez Canal as a precautionary measure.
This will increase traffic through the Mozambique Channel and Cape of Good Hope as ships attempt to take the long way around Africa. Due to the slowdown, rising costs, and uncertainty about the duration of conflict, many ships may also remain at ports along the Indian Ocean.
These shifts in maritime traffic will create new security risks. Congested or poorly patrolled routes often attract piracy and other illicit activities. For example, pirates operating from Somalia have historically attacked ships off the coast of Africa in the western Indian Ocean, and piracy is on the rise again.
About a dozen B-1 bombers are now at RAF Fairford in the United Kingdom as a base from which to launch strikes on Iran, people familiar with the matter told Air & Space Forces Magazine—which could represent more than half of the U.S. Air Force’s mission-capable Lancer fleet.
The buildup at the air base in Gloucestershire, England, started March 6 when the U.K. Ministry of Defense started allowing the U.S. to use its bases for attacks on Iran and has continued apace in recent days, open-source data shows. All told, as many as 15 bombers are at the base, with three B-52 Stratofortresses in addition to the B-1s.
The press office for U.S. Central Command declined to comment. On March 7, the U.K. Ministry of Defense said in a statement that “United States has started using British bases for specific defensive operations to prevent Iran firing missiles into the region.” U.S. bombers are striking Iranian missile sites, the U.S. military says.
There are 44 B-1s in the Air Force inventory, but a portion of them are not available for operations at any given time, either for testing or for maintenance. As of late 2024, the service maintained a 47 percent mission-capable rate for the aircraft—suggesting around 20-22 jets are actually available.
While the U.S. has used both its B-52 and B-2 bombers to strike Iran, the B-1 is the most heavily deployed right now. It has the largest internal payload and is the service’s faster-flying bomber, making it ideal for reaching long distances and striking multiple targets over a wide area.
“I’m not surprised by it,” said retired Col. Mark Gunzinger, director of future concepts and capability assessments at AFA’s Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies and a former B-52 pilot. “I think the Air Force is using its bomber force quite effectively.”
A U.S. Air Force B-1B Lancer takes off in support of Operation Epic Fury, March 6, 2026. U.S. Air Force photo
“For a fight of even this magnitude, relying on only one bomber variant could really put a lot of strain on that force and on their air crews,” Gunzinger said.
In the first few days of the operation, bombers were flying roughly 36-hour round-trip sorties from the continental United States to Iran and back. Those distances are doable but reduce the number of flights crews can make.
Initially, British leaders denied the United States use of its bases, such as Fairford and Diego Garcia, an island military base in the Indian Ocean. But officials relented following a March 5 Iranian drone attack on a U.K. base in Cyprus.
In a five-minute address on March 11, U.S. Central Command head Adm. Brad Cooper specifically referenced a bomber mission as part of the ongoing strikes.
“Just last night our bomber force hit a large ballistic missile factory,” Cooper said. He noted that such a strike was an example of targeting both current and future threats.
One B-1 arrived at Fairford on March 6, with four more arriving March 7. Those bombers were joined by three B-52s and three B-1s on March 9, and four B-1s on March 10, according to open source and flight tracker data.
Being able to fly out of Fairford significantly increases sortie rates.
“It certainly reduces strain on pilots, shorter sortie durations, less refueling, all translates to higher sortie rates,” Gunzinger said. “Greater rates mean more bombs on target.”
The B-1’s flexibility and munition carriage volume might also hint at why it’s in greater use at this stage.
B-1 Lancers and B-52 Stratofortresses Unleash Fury on Iran from British Soil
byAero News Journal-March 13, 2026
London, March 13 – The escalation in the ongoing conflict between the United States and Iran has reached a significant new phase with the deployment of U.S. Air Force B-1 Lancer and B-52 Stratofortress bombers operating from Royal Air Force Fairford in the United Kingdom. Under Operation Epic Fury, which commenced on February 28, 2026, these strategic bombers are now launching long-range precision strikes deep into Iranian territory. The use of RAF Fairford as a forward operating base marks a strategic shift, allowing American forces to conduct sustained missions against hardened targets, including missile facilities, command centers, and other military infrastructure. This basing decision followed approval from British authorities for defensive operations against Iranian missile capabilities, enabling rapid response and extended reach without relying solely on assets closer to the Middle East theater.
The B-1B Lancer, known for its supersonic speed and substantial payload capacity, has been particularly active in delivering bunker-busting munitions and precision-guided weapons to neutralize deeply buried Iranian ballistic missile sites and underground launchers. Multiple B-1Bs arrived at RAF Fairford in early March 2026, with reports indicating a substantial fleet now supporting the campaign. Complementing these efforts, the iconic B-52H Stratofortress bombers, originating from bases such as Minot Air Force Base in North Dakota, have joined the operations. Capable of carrying massive ordnance loads over intercontinental distances, the B-52s have targeted command-and-control posts and missile-related infrastructure, contributing to the degradation of Iran’s retaliatory capabilities. These heavy bombers, supported by aerial refueling, undertake lengthy missions from the UK, underscoring the transatlantic alliance’s role in projecting power across vast distances.
The strikes form part of a broader U.S.-led effort to diminish Iran’s military posture, focusing on air superiority and the systematic reduction of threats posed by its missile arsenal and associated networks. U.S. Central Command has emphasized that these operations aim to establish dominance in the airspace and prevent further escalatory actions from Tehran. The integration of B-1 and B-52 platforms enhances the campaign’s effectiveness, combining the B-1’s agility for targeted deep strikes with the B-52’s endurance for large-scale bombardment. As the conflict progresses, the forward deployment to the UK facilitates more frequent and intensive sorties, reducing transit times and increasing operational tempo against key Iranian assets.
This development highlights the enduring strategic importance of allied basing in modern warfare, allowing the U.S. Air Force to leverage advanced bombers like the B-1 Lancer and B-52 Stratofortress for decisive impact far from home stations. The ongoing missions from RAF Fairford signal a commitment to sustained pressure on Iranian military elements, as part of efforts to secure regional stability amid heightened tensions.
Trump says war with Iran will end when ‘I feel it in my bones’
Story by Ryan Mancini
• 1d
The Hill
Success In Iran? Trump and Hegseth Praise U.S. Military Amid Second Week Of Strikes | TRENDING
fallen warriors as they returned to American soil.
Current Time 0:08
Duration 6:44
President Trump on Friday said he knows the U.S. military operation in Iran will come to an end when he can “feel it in my bones,” a remark that comes almost two weeks after joint U.S. and Israeli strikes on the Middle Eastern country began.
Since the bombing began, one thing has become steadily clearer: the hard-liners stayed in control. The IRGC was hit, but it did not fracture. Iran’s ruling system absorbed the blow, reconstituted leadership, and kept functioning. U.S. intelligence now says in multiple reports from multiple agencies and analysts: the regime is not at risk of imminent collapse.
That is news, but it is not the revelatory part.
The revelatory part is this: the resilience now visible in Iran was not merely a conclusion reached after the war failed to produce regime collapse. It was a assessment made clearly before the war and communicated clearly to Trump, who ignored it. Reuters has now reported that before the attack, CIA assessments presented to the White House warned that if Ali Khamenei were killed, he could be replaced by other hard-line figures, including elements of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps or equally hard-line clerics. Reuters also reported that a separate U.S. intelligence report noted there had been no IRGC defections even during January’s mass anti-government protests, a crucial signal because successful revolutions usually require at least some fracture inside the coercive apparatus. This buttressed the assessment that the regime would not collapse. And it raises even more “what was he thinking?” questions.
The same pattern appears on the economic side. The Wall Street Journal reports that before the war, Joint Chiefs Chairman Dan Caine warned Trump in multiple briefings that an American attack could prompt Iran to shut the Strait of Hormuz, through which about 20% of the world’s oil exports pass. Trump went ahead anyway, believing Tehran would likely capitulate before it could close the strait or cause major economic damage.
Put plainly: Trump does not just appear to have misread the war. He appears to have brushed aside intelligence that undercut the political premise of the war before it started, and military warnings about the economic consequences if it escalated. (Comment: I’m not the only intel oriented Substacker reporting this — see Jeff Stein’s article at Spytalk. He’s on it too.)
What was known before the war
In the run-up to the U.S.-Israeli attack, the CIA produced assessments over a two-week period examining what might happen in Iran after a U.S. intervention. Those assessments consistently concluded that even if Khamenei were killed, he would almost certainly be replaced by hard-line figures from the IRGC or hard-line clerics. Reuters also noted that the reports did not treat any single scenario as certain, but hard-line continuity was clearly the most probable outcome in the assessment.
That matters because it cuts directly against the fantasy version of regime change that hovered over the opening phase of the war: kill the top leader, shock the system, trigger panic, open the way for internal collapse. It’s now clear the CIA never bought that script as the likely outcome.
Two days later, Reuters added another critical detail. It reported that the CIA assessments had been presented to the White House before the attack, and that they were reinforced by at least one separate U.S. intelligence report showing there had been no IRGC defections during the January protests. That is not a minor point. It goes to the heart of whether a regime is vulnerable to overthrow. If the coercive core stays loyal, battered autocracies often survive. If it fractures, they can fall. Reuters’ sourcing points toward a prewar intelligence picture in which the coercive core was still holding.
In other words, the idea that Iran’s regime was resilient was not something discovered only after the bombing began. It was already in the intelligence stream. Trump just ignored it.
What was learned after the war began
Postwar intelligence has only reinforced that picture.
Multiple US intelligence sources reported on March 11 that U.S. intelligence assessed Iran’s government was not currently at risk of collapse despite nearly two weeks of U.S. and Israeli bombardment. The reporting said the leadership remained largely intact, the regime retained control of the public, and the hard-line power structure was still functioning.
Reuters later reported that Trump’s aides were struggling to shape an exit from the conflict while Iran’s leadership continued to fight back and U.S. intelligence indicated that the regime was not at risk of collapse anytime soon. That same Reuters report says Iran has proved a much tougher and better-armed foe than the White House’s Venezuela analogy seemed to assume.
This is the distinction that matters. Before the war, the intelligence pointed to hard-line continuity and no obvious path to regime collapse. After the war began, the intelligence pointed to exactly what those earlier warnings implied: the regime was still standing.
The Strait of Hormuz warning
The Wall Street Journal fills in the other half of the accountability case.
According to the Journal, Dan Caine warned Trump in multiple briefings before the Feb. 28 assault that Iran would likely close the Strait of Hormuz if attacked. Trump acknowledged the possibility but decided to move ahead, believing Tehran would capitulate before it could shut the strait or cause serious economic damage. He also believed the U.S. military could handle the fallout if necessary.
That is not a side issue. It goes to strategic judgment.
The strait is the world’s most important oil chokepoint. A president choosing war after being warned that the adversary may respond by choking energy flows is making a decision with obvious global consequences. The Journal reports that Trump was warned about precisely that scenario and chose to gamble that Iran would fold first.
That gamble now looks catastrophic.
So where did Trump get the idea they would fall?
This is where the reporting becomes revealing in a different way.
At least on the evidence now in public view, the confidence that Iran would crack does not appear to have come from the CIA. It appears to have come from Trump’s own worldview, his reading of prior operations, and a highly compressed decision process.
The Wall Street Journal reports that Trump’s decision was shaped by his confidence in U.S. military power and by what he saw as the success of previous operations, including last summer’s strike on Iranian nuclear sites and the January mission in Venezuela. The Journal says those episodes reinforced his belief that swift regime change could be managed through a well-executed military operation and a more accommodating successor. It adds, bluntly, that “that didn’t happen this time.” Instead, Mojtaba Khamenei emerged as supreme leader and vowed to keep blocking the Strait of Hormuz.
The Journal also reports that planning was handled by a very small circle that included JD Vance, Marco Rubio, and Pete Hegseth, and that this narrowed the range of advice and dissent reaching the president. Even basic questions — including how to ensure a friendly successor in Tehran — were left unresolved.
Reuters points in a similar direction. It reported that although Trump publicly urged Iranians to “take back” their country, senior U.S. officials remained skeptical that the battered opposition could topple the regime in the near term. Reuters also reported that officials had grown pessimistic that any Washington-backed opposition figure could realistically control the country if the government fell.
So the picture that emerges is not one in which the intelligence community told Trump the regime would collapse and events proved them wrong. It is closer to the opposite. The intelligence pointed toward resilience. Trump appears to have preferred a story of rapid coercion, rapid capitulation, and manageable fallout.
This is the real scandal
Wars are full of uncertainty. Intelligence is not prophecy. No serious person should pretend that the CIA can predict every succession struggle or street uprising with perfect accuracy.
But that is not the issue here.
The issue is whether the president was warned that the most optimistic assumptions behind escalation were doubtful before he launched it. The Reuters and Wall Street Journal reporting strongly suggests that he was. Reuters says CIA assessments warned that killing Khamenei could simply harden the regime’s continuity under other hard-liners, and that other intelligence reporting showed no sign of the IRGC fracture that real regime collapse would likely require. The Journal says Trump was warned that Iran could close the Strait of Hormuz and chose to believe it would surrender before that could happen.
That turns this from a story about bad luck into a story about accountability.
The resilience of the Iranian regime is not the revelation. The revelation is that Trump was told repeatedly in advance that regime change was highly unlikely — and went to war expressly for regime change anyway. When that didn’t work, the adlibbing began. And here we are.
Accountability is not a meaningful feature of life in America in 2026 — at least not when it comes to the highest levels of the Executive Branch. It’s wishful thinking to believe that independent media calling Trump out will accomplish any meaningful accountability — but we try. We try. Thank you—especially paid supporters—for helping give responsible independent media a voice. Collectively we may accomplish something. Your help matters.
Thanks for reading DEEPER LOOK ! This post is public so feel free to share it.
It’s not an invasion, it’s a liberation’: LA’s Iranian community speaks out after US strikes Tehran
The desire to see an increasingly ruthless Iranian regime collapse has intensified in Iranian expat communities
Andrew Gumbel in Los AngelesSun 1 Mar 2026 17.00 GMTShare
A decade ago, when Iran signed an agreement with the Obama administration and five other countries to give up its ambitions for a nuclear weapon, Alaleh Kamran was staunchly on the political left and welcomed the prospect of peace in the country of her birth.
Now, though, as Israel and the US launched punishing airstrikes on Iran, she finds herself in a dramatically different headspace.
“It’s not an invasion, it’s a liberation,” she says. “My support is behind this 100% .”
Kamran, a criminal defense lawyer in Los Angeles, which boasts the largest Iranian community in the world outside Iran, used to be at loggerheads with more conservative members of the Iranian Jewish community here who opposed the nuclear deal from the outset.
Demonstrators wave flags in celebration following the US and Israeli strikes in Iran; in Los Angeles. Photograph: Chris Torres/EPA
Now she agrees with them when they say there can be no negotiating with an authoritarian government they view as no better than murderers. She and other community members the Guardian spoke with believe that a majority of Iranians agree, too, particularly in the wake of last month’s killing of thousands, possibly tens of thousands, of street protesters seeking to overthrow the regime. In the run-up to the US and Israeli bombardments, some in the protest movement called openly for help from the outside world.
As of 2025, the population of Iran is estimated to be around 92.4 million. The population has been gradually increasing, but the growth rate has slowed in recent years. Wikipedia Trading Economics
Iranians in America:
As of 2024, there are approximately 750,000 Iranian Americans living in the United States, making up about 0.2% of the population. This number has grown significantly since the 1979 Iranian Revolution, with many Iranians seeking refuge in the U.S. during that time. Pew Research Center ebsco.com
Deporting Iranians from America:
US begins deporting hundreds of Iranians after rare deal with Tehran
So, in the age of AI-slop, stay vigilant and be on the lookout for generative AI. When you read an article, familiarise yourself with the author and their sources. Become an active, thinking person on the internet, however brain-dead and robotic your fellow users are becoming. And no matter how many companies try to shove it down your throat, take a stance against artificial intelligence and the harm it causes the open and free internet we used to love.
If you ever visit Ternopil, you will see the pond.
But it is not a pond in the way you imagine.
You will be hundreds of miles from the sea, yet that body of water can fool you for a moment.
It stretches across the city like a harbor. It is not the ocean and not a great river, but when you stand on its edge and look across the water, on some days you barely see the other side.
And while everything there seems peaceful, it is impossible to forget the nation around it.
The surface moves with wind and light, and the pond becomes its own small world.
I often went there and sat for hours.
When we are close to water, it seems that thoughts flow differently in our minds.
But I was there more to watch than to think.
There are many birds in the pond. Swallows, gulls, and other fast flying creatures that flash across the water and disappear before you can follow them.
The ducks are different.
They move slowly. That makes them easier to observe, and so we can follow their lives for a while.
A mother guiding a line of ducklings. A duck dipping its head under the water looking for food.
Another one chasing a piece of bread someone threw from the shore.
Simple scenes.
Yet when I watched them long enough, a strange question started to form in my mind.
Do they know?
Do they know there is a war here?
This city is in a country at war. Missiles cross the sky. Sirens break the night. Every family carries a weight that didn’t exist some time ago.
But the ducks keep swimming across the pond.
I am sure they sense there is something wrong around them. Animals always feel the energy around them, but I doubt they understand the madness unfolding around them.
Animals fight too. They defend territory. They compete for food. They protect their young.
For a long time we humans liked to say that violence comes from our animal side.
That our primitive impulses are dangerous and our rational minds are what make us civilized.
Watching the ducks, I realized the opposite is what is true.
Animals do not design systems of destruction.
They do not invent theories to justify cruelty.
It never crosses their minds to build machines meant to destroy entire cities.
Those things come from human rationality.
From plans, strategies, doctrines, and calculations created in our human minds.
We don’t need the fantasy that the world inside that pond is gentle.
Every creature there struggles to live. Food must be found, danger must be avoided. Winter always returns.
I have no idea what these brave ducks do when the pond freezes over for months.
But there is balance.
No duck wakes up with the dream of conquering the entire pond.
No bird decides that another species must disappear.
They fight for life, then they continue living.
While I was there watching the water, thinking about drones, bombs, missiles, sirens, and shelters, I realized that a duck in Ternopil is living a more peaceful life than every single human being in Ukraine.
Possibly more peaceful than any of us anywhere, in times like these.
They are living under the same threat as us humans, for sure.
But they are not ignorant.
They simply does not carry our kind of rational madness.
The duck knows water, hunger, risk, movement.
That is enough.
And that small world stays in equilibrium.
Meanwhile we, the species that calls ourselves rational, keep pushing our world closer to destruction.
November 19, 2025. Two miles from the Ternopil Pond.
So I sit by the pond in Ternopil and watch the ducks moving calmly across the water.
I didn’t come there to think, only to watch.
Just a moment of stillness.
But in a country under invasion, it is impossible not to wonder which species actually understands how to live.
—Viktor
🇺🇦
This journal will be always open to everyone. Paid subscriptions are what make that possible, and they allow me to continue dedicating the time and energy this work requires.
However you subscribe, I thank you for reading. Slava Ukraini!
Meanwhile, as Trump lifts sanctions to promote Russian oil:
America earlier announced it was temporarily easing sanctions on Russian oil (brought in to cut off funding for the Ukraine war) in a bid to bring down rising prices.
Seyed Abbas Araghchi’s post featured the front of Friday’s Financial Times, which claimed Russia would be making $150m (£113m) a day following the US move.
Binance Fired Staff Who Flagged $1 Billion Moving to Sanctioned Iran Entities
Weeks after Trump pardoned Binance’s founder, the company dismantled probe and suspended the investigators; Binance denied inquiry ended or staff fired for the concerns
Listen
Richard Teng, CEO of Binance, and Changpeng Zhao, the crypto exchange’s founder. Daisy Korpics/WSJ, Kent Nishimura/Bloomberg News, Abedin Taherkenareh/Shutterstock, Jason Redmond/AFP/Getty, Sepahnews/Zuma Press
Weeks after President Trump granted a pardon to convicted Binance founder Changpeng Zhao in October, executives at the crypto exchange dismantled a staff investigation into $1 billion that had recently moved through Binance to a network funding Iran-backed terror groups, according to company documents and people familiar with Binance’s operations.
A trading account belonging to a close Binance business partner was identified as a primary channel that moved cryptocurrency to the Iranian network.
Wall Street Journal
Comment from Olga Lautman, Substack:
Why It Matters: Trump’s pardon weakened deterrence against terror financing and sanctions evasion as Binance did business with Trump-linked crypto ventures. When a firm tied to illicit flows is politically shielded while connected to a president’s family, enforcement becomes favoritism—blurring national security, private profit, and presidential power.
Add Decrypt as your preferred source to see more of our stories on Google.
In brief
Illicit cryptocurrency addresses received at least $154 billion in 2025.
Sanctioned entities accounted for about $104 billion of those flows.
Activity tied to Iran, Russia, and North Korea drove much of the volume.
Iran’s use of cryptocurrency to move money under sanctions is expanding, with more than $3 billion tied to networks linked to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps in 2025, according to blockchain analytics firm Chainalysis.
Iran’s Crypto Market Shuts Down Amid U.S.-Israel Strikes and Internet Blackout
Iran’s cryptocurrency ecosystem has been severely disrupted following the U.S.-Israeli airstrikes that began on February 28, 2026, targeting military and leadership sites in Tehran—including the confirmed death of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Trading volume on Iranian exchanges collapsed by nearly 80% between February 27 and March 1, according to blockchain research firm TRM Labs, with activity grinding to a near halt due to a nationwide internet blackout imposed shortly after the strikes.
Key Impacts on Iran’s Crypto Market
Volume crash: TRM Labs data shows an approximately 80% drop in trading volume on major Iranian platforms like Nobitex (Iran’s largest exchange) in the immediate aftermath.
Internet restrictions: NetBlocks and other monitors reported connectivity falling to 1–4% of normal levels within hours of the first strikes, severely limiting access to exchanges, wallets, and blockchain explorers. The blackout—lasting over 48 hours in many areas—has been attributed to both infrastructure damage from strikes and deliberate government throttling to prevent coordination of unrest and information flow.
Central bank intervention: Iran’s central bank ordered platforms to temporarily suspend trading of the USDT–toman pair (the main crypto-to-local-currency bridge). When trading resumed, liquidity was extremely thin, with uneven pricing and slow execution.
Massive but Brief Outflow Spike
While trading slowed dramatically, capital flight surged initially:
Blockchain analytics firm Elliptic reported outflows from Nobitex jumped over 700% within minutes of the first strikes, with roughly $500,000–$3 million in crypto moving offshore in the first hour.
Many transactions were traced to foreign exchanges, suggesting users rushed to protect savings by moving assets beyond Iran’s borders.
The spike was short-lived—outflows slowed sharply as the internet blackout expanded, preventing further large-scale transfers.
Experts describe the current state of Iranian exchanges as “risk-managed” mode — slower withdrawals, tighter controls, and limited functionality to maintain operations under extreme uncertainty.
Broader Crypto Market Reaction
The geopolitical shock briefly rattled global crypto:
Bitcoin dipped to around $63,000 in the initial panic before recovering to the $66,000–$69,000 range.
Altcoins like Ethereum, XRP, Solana, and others fell 7–10% in the first wave but also saw partial rebounds.
The event underscores crypto’s dual nature: a potential hedge during local currency instability, but highly vulnerable to infrastructure disruptions like internet blackouts.
What This Means Going Forward
Short-term: Iran’s crypto market is effectively frozen for most users due to the blackout and controls. Any sustained conflict or prolonged restrictions could further isolate domestic traders.
Long-term: If tensions de-escalate and connectivity returns, outflows may stabilize. However, the episode highlights crypto’s dependence on internet access and the risks of centralized choke points (even in decentralized systems).
Global implication: The crisis demonstrates how quickly geopolitical events can trigger capital flight into crypto—then trap it when infrastructure fails.
The situation remains highly fluid, with the internet blackout now exceeding 48 hours in many areas and no clear timeline for restoration. Iranian crypto users are effectively cut off from global markets for now, underscoring the real-world limits of digital assets during national emergencies.Todor Tsonev publication: “Nationwide Blackout Freezes Iran’s Crypto Trading After Khamenei’s Death” was written for 24crypto.news
borderslynn 
You must be logged in to post a comment.