Day 12 Morning is up.
Three commercial sailors are missing in the Strait of Hormuz right now — struck by unknown projectiles on a cargo ship called the Mayuree Naree. It's the 14th vessel hit since the war began. The CEO of Saudi Aramco used the word "catastrophic" on an earnings call yesterday.
A US senator walked out of a classified war briefing this week and said publicly: the war goals don't include Iran's nuclear program, regime change is off the table, and — on the Strait — "they had no plan." He called it unforgiveable. He said it was 100% foreseeable.
Also in this edition: the new Iranian supreme leader, wounded on Day 1, still hasn't appeared in public. Six Palestinians were killed in the West Bank last week while the cameras pointed at Tehran. And Iran this morning threatened to start targeting banks.
Twice daily. Every source labeled.
I'm so thankful for finding someone who I can hear unadulterated news about this war without an ulterior motive. US news sources can no longer be trusted. Thank you sir!
OMG! 😱 My brain is exploding! I get my information from many sources. This man I like to listen to. He goes at a good pace and has a very relaxed style. Is he real or A I Generated?
No offense but anytime you say "confirmed by the NYT and Israel, I don't believe any of it. Everything they say and report on is propaganda. I don't believe that there's anything major publication or media outlets reliable and believable in the West and Western Allies as their main goal is to make Israel look powerful. The right wing media globally is painting much different pictures and they now control global news.
This editorial against the US/Israeli War on Iran offers an important broader perspective on the implications of Trump's war aims.
In an editorial from a year ago W-O warned:
“Trump’s “expansionist saber-rattling, attempts at resource grabbing reminiscent of the colonial era, and aggressive protectionism could lead to new wars and possibly another world conflagration. This is more likely in an increasingly unstable world in which ultra-rightist forces have already ascended to power, or are knocking on its doors, in a rising number of ‘first-world,’ or more accurately imperialist, countries.”
Today W-O warns:
“And, just as in Venezuela, U.S. imperialism seeks to gain an advantage vis-à-vis China. Before the U.S. attacks, Beijing was buying more than 80% of the oil shipped from Iran, as well as having been the buyer of more than half of Venezuela’s oil exports. Together, this oil accounts for about 17% of Chinese petroleum imports, a significant share of its total needs….the underlying competition between the United States and China threatens a much broader and more devastating military conflict down the road.”
…..
“Trump and his ilk will never install a government anywhere that represents the interests of the vast majority — working people. Simultaneously with his call on the Iranian people “to seize [their] destiny,” Trump told the New York Times he had “three very good choices” to lead the country for them. Once again, the White House is preparing to call the shots.”
……
“Now is the time to broaden protests that sprang up after the first bombing raids. United front actions — educating and drawing in broad layers of the population — are needed. These can center on the growing demands to immediately end the bombing of Iran.”
“The U.S. military should immediately get out of the Middle East!”
I have a couple of questions for the “rest of the world” reporting.
You’ve clearly done the work on sourcing. The casualty figures, Hormuz incident counts, and oil‑market reactions all line up with what major outlets are carrying, and you label where numbers come from. That’s the part I don’t have an issue with. My questions are about what happens after the facts are collected: the leap from “serious crisis with multiple unknowns” to “catastrophe” and “no plan.”
First, when you describe the Strait as effectively closed and the situation as “catastrophic,” what standard are you using for “catastrophe”? Hormuz has been one of the most fragile, escalatory chokepoints on earth for decades. In past crises, tankers have been attacked, shipping has paused or rerouted, insurance has spiked, and prices have jumped, without the global system actually collapsing. Are you distinguishing between “highly dangerous and disruptive” and “system‑breaking,” or are those categories collapsing into one word? Because if every serious escalation at Hormuz is “catastrophic,” the term stops telling us anything about relative risk.
Second, on the claim that “they had NO PLAN”: you’re transparently quoting Senator Chris Murphy’s frustration after a classified briefing. That’s fair as a report of what he said. But do you treat that line as a description of his assessment or as a literal statement that no operational planning exists? There’s a difference between “the plan is underdeveloped, incoherent, or politically indefensible” and “nothing at all has been thought through.” You blur that line in a way that makes the most pessimistic interpretation feel like the only one. At minimum, readers deserve to know that “NO PLAN” is the language of a partisan critic coming out of a heated briefing, not the minutes of a strategy meeting.
Which brings me to the third point: since you lean so heavily on Murphy as your narrator of what’s really going on, it matters who you’ve chosen as your oracle. Murphy is not a neutral assessor of risk. For years he has described virtually every Trump initiative he opposes as a step toward national collapse: democracy on the brink, a “dizzying campaign to increase violence,” a nation with “something rotten at the core,” and now an “endless war” in Iran with “NO PLAN” to reopen Hormuz. Sometimes those predictions land; just as often, they don’t. That doesn’t mean he’s wrong this time. It does mean a politician whose brand is permanent emergency should not be treated as a disinterested auditor of catastrophe. When you elevate his most exasperated line to headline status, you’re importing his partisan doom‑loop into your own supposedly corrective reporting.
Fourth, you are very hard on US media for minimizing or burying stories, yet your own narrative selects almost exclusively for data points that support “catastrophic / no plan” and downplays anything that suggests partial mitigation or competing incentives. There are countervailing facts that never really get a hearing in your frame: tankers transiting under escort, rerouting via alternative pipelines, the capacity of strategic reserves to cushion supply shocks, allied pressure on Washington, and the long historical pattern of markets overshooting on fear and then stabilizing. Are those strategic facts less real, or do they simply not fit the story you want to tell about uniquely reckless, planless US power?
In other words: the reporting is solid; the pattern‑recognition feels like moral emergency politics from a different angle. You verify the inputs, then narrate the outputs as if the worst plausible outcome were the only one on the board. For a project that advertises itself as “no agenda” and “just what the rest of the world already knows,” that’s a problem. It looks less like an antidote to American crisis‑narrative journalism and more like its mirror image: the same apocalyptic register, the same reliance on partisan voices of doom, just pointed in the opposite direction.
I think he was quoting the oil exec when he called it catastrophic.
We will have to take Murphy’s word in place of the minutes being release or an honest briefing from the DOD. And he did attribute this “No Plan” theory to Murphy.
You guys had your shot at “balanced reporting”. You took a slight editorial bias in mainstream media and used it as a cudgel to get propaganda mainstreamed. Playing the victim of bias for decades. They were just selling ads to what was in demand- the truth.
Pretending this administration doesn’t lie on an hourly basis while demanding proof for every statement from anyone on the left is a tired and obvious tactic. I’m sure there is some debate term that describes that but I’ll call it belligerent dishonesty.
If you are one of the dunces still defending republicans and their pedo protecting white christain nationalist agenda, I say: Keep digging your fascist hole and we will bury you in it. Enjoy while it lasts.
This is the first time I’ve seen your work, and I really appreciate what you’re doing. Subscribed!
Thank you for your reporting.
I'm so thankful for finding someone who I can hear unadulterated news about this war without an ulterior motive. US news sources can no longer be trusted. Thank you sir!
OMG! 😱 My brain is exploding! I get my information from many sources. This man I like to listen to. He goes at a good pace and has a very relaxed style. Is he real or A I Generated?
No offense but anytime you say "confirmed by the NYT and Israel, I don't believe any of it. Everything they say and report on is propaganda. I don't believe that there's anything major publication or media outlets reliable and believable in the West and Western Allies as their main goal is to make Israel look powerful. The right wing media globally is painting much different pictures and they now control global news.
End the Bombing of Iran; No Blood for Oil!
https://world-outlook.com/2026/03/07/end-the-bombing-of-iran-no-blood-for-oil/
This editorial against the US/Israeli War on Iran offers an important broader perspective on the implications of Trump's war aims.
In an editorial from a year ago W-O warned:
“Trump’s “expansionist saber-rattling, attempts at resource grabbing reminiscent of the colonial era, and aggressive protectionism could lead to new wars and possibly another world conflagration. This is more likely in an increasingly unstable world in which ultra-rightist forces have already ascended to power, or are knocking on its doors, in a rising number of ‘first-world,’ or more accurately imperialist, countries.”
Today W-O warns:
“And, just as in Venezuela, U.S. imperialism seeks to gain an advantage vis-à-vis China. Before the U.S. attacks, Beijing was buying more than 80% of the oil shipped from Iran, as well as having been the buyer of more than half of Venezuela’s oil exports. Together, this oil accounts for about 17% of Chinese petroleum imports, a significant share of its total needs….the underlying competition between the United States and China threatens a much broader and more devastating military conflict down the road.”
…..
“Trump and his ilk will never install a government anywhere that represents the interests of the vast majority — working people. Simultaneously with his call on the Iranian people “to seize [their] destiny,” Trump told the New York Times he had “three very good choices” to lead the country for them. Once again, the White House is preparing to call the shots.”
……
“Now is the time to broaden protests that sprang up after the first bombing raids. United front actions — educating and drawing in broad layers of the population — are needed. These can center on the growing demands to immediately end the bombing of Iran.”
“The U.S. military should immediately get out of the Middle East!”
Thank you. I look forward to your reporting. Substack is where I get my news.
Chris Murphy?? No bias there.
I have a couple of questions for the “rest of the world” reporting.
You’ve clearly done the work on sourcing. The casualty figures, Hormuz incident counts, and oil‑market reactions all line up with what major outlets are carrying, and you label where numbers come from. That’s the part I don’t have an issue with. My questions are about what happens after the facts are collected: the leap from “serious crisis with multiple unknowns” to “catastrophe” and “no plan.”
First, when you describe the Strait as effectively closed and the situation as “catastrophic,” what standard are you using for “catastrophe”? Hormuz has been one of the most fragile, escalatory chokepoints on earth for decades. In past crises, tankers have been attacked, shipping has paused or rerouted, insurance has spiked, and prices have jumped, without the global system actually collapsing. Are you distinguishing between “highly dangerous and disruptive” and “system‑breaking,” or are those categories collapsing into one word? Because if every serious escalation at Hormuz is “catastrophic,” the term stops telling us anything about relative risk.
Second, on the claim that “they had NO PLAN”: you’re transparently quoting Senator Chris Murphy’s frustration after a classified briefing. That’s fair as a report of what he said. But do you treat that line as a description of his assessment or as a literal statement that no operational planning exists? There’s a difference between “the plan is underdeveloped, incoherent, or politically indefensible” and “nothing at all has been thought through.” You blur that line in a way that makes the most pessimistic interpretation feel like the only one. At minimum, readers deserve to know that “NO PLAN” is the language of a partisan critic coming out of a heated briefing, not the minutes of a strategy meeting.
Which brings me to the third point: since you lean so heavily on Murphy as your narrator of what’s really going on, it matters who you’ve chosen as your oracle. Murphy is not a neutral assessor of risk. For years he has described virtually every Trump initiative he opposes as a step toward national collapse: democracy on the brink, a “dizzying campaign to increase violence,” a nation with “something rotten at the core,” and now an “endless war” in Iran with “NO PLAN” to reopen Hormuz. Sometimes those predictions land; just as often, they don’t. That doesn’t mean he’s wrong this time. It does mean a politician whose brand is permanent emergency should not be treated as a disinterested auditor of catastrophe. When you elevate his most exasperated line to headline status, you’re importing his partisan doom‑loop into your own supposedly corrective reporting.
Fourth, you are very hard on US media for minimizing or burying stories, yet your own narrative selects almost exclusively for data points that support “catastrophic / no plan” and downplays anything that suggests partial mitigation or competing incentives. There are countervailing facts that never really get a hearing in your frame: tankers transiting under escort, rerouting via alternative pipelines, the capacity of strategic reserves to cushion supply shocks, allied pressure on Washington, and the long historical pattern of markets overshooting on fear and then stabilizing. Are those strategic facts less real, or do they simply not fit the story you want to tell about uniquely reckless, planless US power?
In other words: the reporting is solid; the pattern‑recognition feels like moral emergency politics from a different angle. You verify the inputs, then narrate the outputs as if the worst plausible outcome were the only one on the board. For a project that advertises itself as “no agenda” and “just what the rest of the world already knows,” that’s a problem. It looks less like an antidote to American crisis‑narrative journalism and more like its mirror image: the same apocalyptic register, the same reliance on partisan voices of doom, just pointed in the opposite direction.
Looks like his journalism is not for you. Thats ok , plenty of other places to get your reads.
I'd agree, if it were "journalism"
I think he was quoting the oil exec when he called it catastrophic.
We will have to take Murphy’s word in place of the minutes being release or an honest briefing from the DOD. And he did attribute this “No Plan” theory to Murphy.
You guys had your shot at “balanced reporting”. You took a slight editorial bias in mainstream media and used it as a cudgel to get propaganda mainstreamed. Playing the victim of bias for decades. They were just selling ads to what was in demand- the truth.
Pretending this administration doesn’t lie on an hourly basis while demanding proof for every statement from anyone on the left is a tired and obvious tactic. I’m sure there is some debate term that describes that but I’ll call it belligerent dishonesty.
If you are one of the dunces still defending republicans and their pedo protecting white christain nationalist agenda, I say: Keep digging your fascist hole and we will bury you in it. Enjoy while it lasts.