Tag Archives: Gulf states

March 19, 2026 · 13:12

Say what, when?

That is a statement we are familiar with. We get things wrong. You, me, people we know. But the setting that Al Jazeera gives us (at https://www.aljazeera.com/video/newsfeed/2026/3/18/top-us-spy-accused-of-omitting-iran-intel-that-contradicts-trump) is different. The setting that is given us is ‘Top US spy accused of omitting Iran intel that contradicts Trump’ a spymaster (yes, I am laughing at this too) should not be allowed to give us anything like “US Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard has been accused of altering her Senate testimony on Iran, omitting details that contradict President Trump’s claim that the country posed an imminent threat.” You see, as a person of ‘direct interpretation of intelligence’ you are in a position that if you cannot say what you mean, you can never mean what you say. That is the direct involvement of Intelligence and as such we can deduce that America is more of a joke than anyone has been considering for some time. And this is not to the audience, as stated this is towards the people ‘steering’ that comedy stage. Altered intelligence was offered (as said) towards the US senate. That is a more ludicrous setting to say in the least.

And it gets to be worse we get ‘US counterterrorism chief resigns over Iran war’ from Defense One (at https://www.defenseone.com/policy/2026/03/counterterrorism-center-head-resigns-over-iran-war/412171/) where we are given “The head of the National Counterterrorism Center resigned from his post Tuesday over the U.S.-Israel war on Iran. “I cannot in good conscience support the ongoing war in Iran. Iran posed no imminent threat to our nation, and it is clear that we started this war due to pressure from Israel and its powerful American lobby,” Joe Kent, the head of the center, wrote in a letter to President Donald Trump.” As such we now get a new kettle of fish. I personally believe that the setting of “due to pressure from Israel and its powerful American lobby” is additional dishonest. What it gives me is (beside a weird taste in my mouth) is that the setting that I have been giving for some time that America is too broke to matter, that this administration will steal whatever they can to get the revenue they need to pay interest payments. That could also result in the International courts in The Hague and the United Nations giving the United States a written summons to adjust or be made irrelevant. I think this is a much better resolution than Rubio telling the world that the United States decides on International law than the world does (a little sloppy explanation, but it suffices), like we see the how the United States are setting the setting for Cuba now. A setting that is merely muddling the pool. As I personally see it, it is a way to get Russia involved so that the United States can cry like little bitches that they are under attack from Russia, and Europe much act in its defence.

So as we are now given a new state through Reuters as we are given ‘Exclusive: US weighs military reinforcements as Iran war enters possible new phase’ (at https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/us-weighs-military-reinforcements-iran-war-enters-possible-new-phase-2026-03-18/) a mere two hours ago. We see here “President Donald Trump’s administration is considering deploying thousands of U.S. troops to reinforce its operation in the Middle East, as the U.S. military prepares for possible next steps in its campaign against Iran, said a U.S. official and three people familiar with the matter. The deployments could help provide Trump with additional options as he weighs expanding U.S. operations, with the Iran war well into its third week.” But this has come AFTER Tulsi Gabbard has been accused of “altering her Senate testimony on Iran, omitting details that contradict President Trump’s claim that the country posed an imminent threat.” So the question becomes is Tulsi Gabbard the decoy to hide the financial setting of the United States, or is there more in play and that is something that the minute by minute logs will carry to the top of the limelight as the International Court of Justice (ICJ) is approached by Iran and the Gulf states for financial appeasement because of the aggressive actions of the United States (and Israel). And do not think that this is out of the realm of possibilities. The United States (through President Trump) and its lackeys made statements like ‘Just for Joy’ and ‘no quester and no mercy’ all settings that does not fare well in the articles of war and beside the point that the United States never gave a writ through the declaration of war makes this an almost slam dunk for Iran. We can be against Iran for all we like (I personally am) but we adhere to the law and there Iran (the Gulf States too) have a valid claim in a setting of musical chairs the Gulf States against Iran and Iran against the United States and Israel. I tend to give the hand of adjustment to Israel, but is there an official declaration of war against Iran? Specifics matter in the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and I get that, I am all for the law (even if it does not make sense at times) and the media is too some level at fault there as they have been omitting information at times because it didn’t ‘play well’ with its audience and as such there is a larger omission to deal with. If you doubt this, that is fair, bit tell me which international newspapers dealt with the setting that Defense One gave us in the setting that Joe Kent, the head of the National Counterterrorism Center. Who else had this in their intelligence summary? As some say, if you cannot say what you mean, you can never mean what you say and as it stands (as I see it), people like Tulsi Gabbard cannot hide behind episodes of expressive aphasia, so whilst we get to “The Trump administration has also discussed options to send ground forces to Iran’s Kharg Island, the hub for 90% of Iran’s oil exports, the three people familiar with the matter and three U.S. officials said. One of the officials said such an operation would be very risky. Iran has the ability to reach the island with missiles and drones.” We get to another setting in all this. Why send troops when it has been ‘bombed back into the stone age’? What is the need to put boots on the ground there? The Strait of Hormuz has more issues and troops there have seemingly no valid interest. It merely shows that the United States want to allegedly siphon off there what it can and that does not serve any purpose but their impeding invoices. But I might be wrong here.

The setting is that the media and through that parties don’t react the way they are supposed to, António Guterres is definitely one of them. When did he clearly speak out in favour of international law? Perhaps he did and the media merely ignored it. Too many questions and the fact that European leaders are ignoring Washington DC is perhaps the only clear setting we currently see.

As I see it, the entire Iranian setting is about to be heralded the largest shit show the world has ever seen and I reckon the media will get their digital dollars out of that fine setting for a long time to come.

Have an optional great day, it’s almost Friyay.

The afterthought

It is Reuters that gave us ‘Exclusive: Stop Israel from bombing Iran’s oil sites, Gulf states urge US’ (at https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/stop-israel-bombing-irans-oil-sites-gulf-states-urge-us-2024-10-11/) Now normally this doesn’t bother or alert me, but after the 6th when I wrote ‘Is it merely political?’ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2024/10/06/is-it-merely-political/) where we got to see “A loophole allows middlemen in countries like Turkey, China and India to refine Russian oil in petrol and diesel before selling it elsewhere — exempt from sanctions. According to a report first seen by POLITICO, Western countries spent $2 billion on this rebranded fuel in the first half of 2024” Now we see Gulf states all ‘worried’ about Iran, or are they perhaps worried about the cheap deal they have from Iran counting in the billions? A setting that most of us ignored as we were unaware of the loophole. But now, even after Iran threatens Israel, we are given “Gulf states are lobbying Washington to stop Israel from attacking Iran’s oil sites because they are concerned their own oil facilities could come under fire from Tehran’s proxies if the conflict escalates, three Gulf sources told Reuters” and in the article we aren’t given any names are we? Which Gulf sources? I think that we are entitled those answers, are we not? Isn’t it interesting that Reuters missed that beat, but then the media is becoming less and less reliable. And it makes sense that the first thing Israel goes after is the money, hence the oil. And in all of this Gulf states are urging the US to stop Israel from bombing oil sites? Who are the stake holders, what Gulf nations are involved and how is that money flowing? More important how can we track that money. How can we expose these exploiters?

These are all questions that are derived from the article on the 6th of October that Politico gave us. If they rebranded 2 billion of Russian oil, there is nothing to stop us thinking that Iran gave others a lot more and from the gulf states there is plenty of players around to do whatever it takes to get a share of a mere 50 million and this has been going on for a while (a speculative thought). The Russia story came out relatively fast, but the Iran dilemma has been going on for decades and now with the Hezbollah eradication as well as the pounding of Hamas, these stake holders are worried that their well dries up and now they are speculatively crying like little bitches that their free ride is drying up. OK, that might have been a little over the top but the sentiment comes across, does it not? Now, I could be wrong, one sides does not prove the other. To put it simplistically every cube is a orthotope, not every orthotope is a cube. As such what is happening in Russia might not happen in Iran. On the other hand, what was set in motion to be applied to Iran was pretty much a setting for Russia as well. And the media isn’t asking questions, why not?

Until recently when Politico showed us the loophole no one asked questions and now they should have asked a few questions, yet they still are not. How weird is that?

Apply that to the fact that we are merely give “three Gulf sources told Reuters” and no one wakes up? Why is that?Journalists are not that dim, as such, I suspect that at least one stakeholders has a larger finger in the journalism pie of Reuters. Just a thought to consider.

Have a great weekend.

The first letter

Yes, sometimes the connection between articles is merely the first letter, it is what connects Aramco and Amazon. I had several articles to look at but they both started with the first letter. The first article is about Aramco.

Aramco
The article (at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-64931074) gives us ‘Aramco: Saudi state-owned oil giant sees record profit of $161bn’ in this, I can tell you right upfront that there are days that I have nowhere near that amount in my wallet (weird eh?) Even as we are given “Aramco rode the wave of high energy prices in 2022,” said Robert Mogielnicki of the Arab Gulf States Institute in Washington. “It would have been difficult for Aramco not to perform strongly in 2022.” We might think all kinds of things, but the one that matters is missing. You see, the world removed Russia as a delivery agent of Oil and after that the choices were rather slim and Saudi Arabia was a natural first choice. But then we get a small stab. It is seen with “Aramco – the world’s second-most valuable company only behind America’s Apple – is a major emitter of greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to climate change”, which might be correct, but was it not America and England begging like little chihuahua’s to deliver more oil cheaper? Would that not be a contributing factor to the emissions? So when I see “Responding to Aramco’s announcement, Amnesty International’s secretary general Agnès Callamard said: “It is shocking for a company to make a profit of more than $161bn in a single year through the sale of fossil fuel – the single largest driver of the climate crisis.”” Another partisan response from everyones United Nations joke Eggy Calamari. The individual who seems to be a Saudi hater right of the bat, like her best friend who is a Guardian ‘investigative’ journalist named Stephanie Kirchgaessner. I have written several pieces in this in the past. You see, Eggy can yap like the chihuahua she is all she likes, but lets see what happens when Aramco lowers output by 20%-30%, what BS ballad will she utter then? And towards the Guardian, like the BS articles on private jet owners. The Environmental report a little over 1 year back, when we were given that 50% of all damage came from 147 facilities in Europe, who of them spend any time looking into that? 147 facilities creating 50% of the damage, now that does not put Aramco in the clear, but they are not alone in creating climate issues, but leave it to these two individuals to spin BS. In the meantime lets see what happens when the Saudi government decides to shut the valves if that Calamari individual does not clean her act. Just a thought. Then we get “Saudi Arabia is the largest producer in the oil cartel Opec (Organisation of the Petroleum Exporting Countries).” Now this is true, yet the larger truth is that Saudi Arabia is not the greatest producer in the world, that is the USA by a fair amount. As such the Calamari shit becomes a debatable issue on a few sides. As such we need to consider what the Saudi government does when it had enough, when they close the taps by as little as 5%, there will be widespread economic issues for both the US and EU, as such we need to start looking at the actual image, not the image from some hating dodo in the UN building.

As such in the first yes, Saudi profits are up and the war has something to do with that, but mainly because people stopped buying Russian oil, so how much more oil did Aramco sell because of that? Oh and tanks are expensive they need 3 gallons per mile, how far does one tank go? Now consider that Ukraine has over 400 tanks. That implies 1200 gallons per mile and the war has been going on for over a year. They are not guilty, neither is Aramco. Russia started that event and they are still playing that game. So when we take a look at the bigger picture, Aramco has a commodity that everyone needs, everyone wants and most of them desire. Prices go up especially when Aramco has 100,000 barrels per hour (simple speculation) and each hour people are trying to buy 125,000 barrels. It is a simple economy and it as in place for several decades. So stop whining like chihuahuas and either come with an alternative, buy less oil or shut up. That is my simplistic view on the matter.

Amazon
The second article touches Amazon. I saw it (at https://www.thegamer.com/nobody-wins-if-amazon-luna-succeeds/) it was a debatable article from beginning to end. I have personal connections here, as such, I am a little biased. The title ‘Nobody Wins If Amazon Luna Succeeds’ was like a red flag to a bull. It is wrong on many levels. You see we all win when Luna succeeds. Luna is the beginning of a new stage in gaming. Streaming gaming can up the ante for gaming in many ways, I have written about it several times. It allows for much larger games, it allows for more versatile games and for an evolving game line. Now this is all possible on a PS5 (a console I love), but only in limited way at present. Nintendo cannot go near this because it is limiting in other ways. Still the Nintendo Switch is a system I love and now that Metroid Prime remastered is released I play it a lot more than anything else. That too is gaming. After 21 years Metroid Prime is just as addictive and beautiful as it ever was and I still claim that no FPS can get near this game, this game is a reason to buy a Switch, even as aSony fat with my PS4 and PS5 I make that claim. Gaming is seen in many stages and many ways and the Luna is merely the next wave towards gaming. The next issue is “Amazon Luna and Google Stadia have the same problem – there simply aren’t enough games to guarantee success” that is a mistake that both Amazon and Google had, I set the premise to almost guarantee 50 million subscriptions (one essential rule comes into play) and they had the option to win this, but Google dropped the cloth and evicted the stage, now Amazon has the option to rule it all alone with plenty of games too, so whomever is making that claim (a Tessa Kaur), she is not looking at the field, there is a lot more and some makers had a starting advantage, but apparently they squandered the advantage and now indie developers could end up with the larger stage. So as we get to “It’s the same with game hardware – they’ll discontinue the PlayStation 4 one day, I won’t be able to repair it when it gasps its last gasp. That will be that, all my games will be unplayable.” We get the first element. The article mentions NOTHING about Microsoft, why is that? Yes, they will discontinue the PS4 at some point, yet at present I will have had a PS4 for well over 11 years and several of these games can be played on the PS5, so I could have that one game for another decade, that part is missing too. The element also missing is that any streaming system will need a proper 5G connection, in many cases there are issues with 4G and 5G is still in a deployment stage in some countries a hell of a lot more then in others. The other element missing is that streaming gaming sucks in rural areas which amount to well over 35% of Europe. We do not see that either. I believe that the Luna is the next generation and with a fully deployed 5G it becomes a hell of a lot better and when developers start thinking of streaming as the ultimate goal, not some game that ALSO plays on the Luna, the game changes a lot more in favour of the Amazon Luna. Streaming is the future and we are only seeing the start of it at present. Microsoft is making their Xbox cloud gaming claims and they are hopelessly lost. Even as they are betraying their population, even as their consoles are not getting it done, they stand to lose a lot against Sony (console) and Amazon (cloud) and that is their real fear. Google might have bailed, but that doesn’t mean that Amazon will too, they actually have a few additional options that they might not have considered yet (speculation on my side). And that is where Apple comes in. If Apple (in their own way) starts in this field, Amazon will have a tough opponent. Microsoft is hopelessly lost and when Apple comes into play they will be doomed. But that is for 2024 I reckon. So far I have faith that Amazon will deliver in the end and create forward momentum in cloud gaming. They need not spin anything, they merely have to create the titles and the population, a setting they have a better hand on then Microsoft ever did. But that is merely my view on the matter.

Tag Archives: Gulf states

Say what, when?

The afterthought

The first letter

Recent Posts

Archives