A senior Iranian security source has indicated that Tehran is preparing what it describes as a decisive and potentially unprecedented response to ongoing US maritime piracy in the strategic waters surrounding the Strait of Hormuz.
Speaking to Press TV on Wednesday, the source warned that continued US actions, described as a form of maritime blockade, would soon be met with a direct military response. “The continued US acts of piracy and maritime bullying will be met with a practical and unprecedented response,” the source stated, signaling a shift away from restraint toward escalation.
According to the official, Iran’s armed forces, operating under the central command structure of Khatam al-Anbiya Headquarters, now view continued patience as no longer strategically viable. The source emphasized that a “painful response” has become necessary if Washington maintains what Tehran considers an illegal siege around one of the world’s most critical energy corridors.
‘Maritime piracy’ framing and strategic messaging
Iranian officials are increasingly framing US naval actions as “maritime piracy,” an escalation that reflects both legal positioning and signaling. The source reiterated that Tehran no longer sees the United States as confronting a passive or predictable adversary.
He pointed to Iran’s historical experience in “imposed wars,” arguing that past confrontations have reshaped the balance of expectations. Iran, he said, has demonstrated the capacity to neutralize US strategies through resilience, asymmetric tactics, and strategic patience.
The US has announced a six-nation coalition aimed at pressuring China to relinquish its interests in two ports in the Panama Canal, accusing Beijing of infringing on Panama’s sovereignty and politicizing global trade. China has called the claims “baseless.”
The development is part of a pattern of US efforts to push China out of Latin America. The US National Security Strategy calls for non-Western “competitors” to be prevented from owning or controlling key assets in the Western Hemisphere.
Last year, US President Donald Trump claimed that China is “operating the Panama Canal” and threatened to “take it back.”
The US State Department issued a joint statement on Tuesday with Bolivia, Costa Rica, Guyana, Paraguay, and Trinidad and Tobago, saying they support Panama against what they describe as external pressure from China.
”Any attempts to undermine Panama’s sovereignty are a threat to us all,” the statement read, adding that Panama “must remain free from any undue external pressure,” and that freedom in the region is “non-negotiable.”
China rejected the accusations, with the Foreign Ministry hitting back on Wednesday against what it called a smear campaign.
”It is the United States that is politicizing and over-securitizing the port issue… hypocritically posturing and spreading rumors and smears everywhere,” spokesman Lin Jian said, dismissing the claims as “baseless and a complete distortion of facts.”
Lin urged the countries involved not to “be deceived or used by forces with ulterior motives” regarding the port inspections, which he said were conducted lawfully.
The US-led campaign follows a ruling in January by Panama’s Supreme Court that annulled contracts held by a subsidiary of Hong Kong-based CK Hutchison Holdings for the Balboa and Cristobal, two key ports at the canal’s entrances – a move that the US has backed.
The Chinese company, which managed the terminals for nearly three decades, has contested the ruling, alleging unlawful expropriation, and has launched international arbitration, seeking over $2 billion in reparations.
Netanyahu shortens corruption hearing to rush to security meeting on Gaza aid flotilla.
Press TV
Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu has shortened a court hearing held to examine his corruption charges to attend an alleged security meeting dedicated to an aid flotilla heading toward the Gaza Strip.
Reports in the Israeli media on Wednesday said that Netanyahu had requested an early exit from the legal hearing into three cases of bribery, corruption and breach of public trust.
Judges initially refused but later allowed a one-hour break, the reports said, adding that Netanyahu then held urgent security talks about the vessel convoy expected to reach the besieged Gaza soon.
Netanyahu faces serious criminal allegations that could result in a prison sentence if he is convicted.
The charges were formally brought several years ago, but he has always escaped a proper and lengthy trial, citing security concerns that he and his supporters allege are threats to the Israeli regime.
The Gaza aid fleet of ships, named Freedom Flotilla, left the Spanish port of Barcelona on April 12 before anchoring near the Italian island of Sicily. The convoy seeks to deliver relief supplies to local residents of Gaza amid tight controls imposed by the Israeli regime on the Palestinian territory.
A similar mission was met with military action on open waters last year, leading to the capture and removal of hundreds of activists.
The flotilla carries activists and volunteers from multiple countries. Organizers say they are determined to break Israel’s maritime blockade on the Palestinians despite previous violent encounters.
Gaza has been under a strict ban on access to humanitarian supplies, including food, fuel and medicine, for nearly two decades. Those bans have been intensified in recent months following a two-year genocidal war by the Israeli regime on the territory which left more than 72,000 people dead and more than 172,000 injured.
Most of Gaza’s inhabitants have lost their homes due to widespread destruction caused by the war of aggression that began in October 2023.
International organizations continue to warn about worsening living conditions in Gaza as people are deprived of their basic necessities because of the Israeli siege, while medical facilities have suffered extensive damage.
US Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, testifies before a US House Armed Services Committee hearing on Capitol Hill on April 29, 2026.
Press TV
US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth was grilled by members of Congress over the enormous cost of the joint American-Israeli military aggression against Iran.
The hearing on Wednesday came after the Pentagon revealed that the aggression against Iran has cost the United States some $25 billion so far.
Jules Hurst, a senior Pentagon official, disclosed the sum to members of the Armed Services Committee of the US House of Representatives as he insisted that most of the money had been spent on munitions.
However, while facing questions from US lawmakers, Hegseth said the cost of the war, which is equal to the entire budget of the US space agency NASA for this year, was justified, while repeating the administration’s false accusations about Iran’s nuclear program.
“What would you pay to ensure Iran does not get a nuclear bomb? What would you pay?” Hegseth asked members of Congress.
The controversial US war minister, who is quite known for his odd behavior, burst into anger when faced with questions about the failure of the US aggression on Iran and the fact that Washington has not been able to conclude the war.
Hegseth called lawmakers who criticize the war and call it a quagmire a group of “reckless, feckless, and defeatist” Congressional Democrats.
He also refused to answer a question whether he had recommended President Donald Trump to start a war with Iran, while also avoiding clearly stating what Washington’s plans were to prevent a closure by Iran of the Strait of Hormuz, which has caused global commodity and energy prices to skyrocket.
Asked about a February 28 attack on a school in southern Iran, which killed nearly 170 children and teachers and caused global uproar, the defense minister repeated previous statements that the attack is under investigation.
The United States has been the world’s most dominant economic nation since World War 2, and the primary way they have maintained their empire has been by controlling the world’s oil and energy.
But the world is quickly changing as more and more people wake up to the fact that the Ukraine war has been a proxy war between the U.S. and Russia, and that the goal of the U.S. has been to cut off Europe, which does not produce near enough oil to meet the needs of its population, from the cheap energy they were importing from Russia.
The blowing up of the Nord Stream pipeline was part of that strategy, to force Europe to start buying more of their energy from the U.S. instead of Russia.
But the rest of the world is striking back now, and quickly abandoning the U.S. dollar as the world’s reserve currency, which has been called the “petrol dollar,” being the currency that the world has used to trade oil.
In order to convince the American public to support the endless wars the U.S. has engaged in since the end of WW II, which have primarily been wars to control the world’s oil, they have had to engage in decades of propaganda spreading lies and myths to justify their military actions.
So let’s dispel some of these myths regarding energy and oil, including the myth that petroleum is a “fossil fuel” and not “renewable.”
Myth #1: The U.S. is Switching to “Green” Energy to Reduce Carbon Emissions and Our Dependency on Oil
With legislation being passed at both the State and Federal levels to force Americans to consume less energy produced by “fossil fuels” and start using more “alternative energy” sources, such as electrical vehicles in place of gas-powered vehicles, it must be true that the U.S. is transitioning away from oil, correct?
Based on the evidence, this is not only false, but the opposite is true.
Within the past few weeks, the Biden Administration approved ConocoPhillips’ $7 billion oil and gas drilling Willow project in Alaska’s National Petroleum Reserve (source), and they also allowed 73.3 million acres of the Gulf of Mexico to be leased for oil drilling by 32 oil companies (source).
[…]
Myth #2: The U.S. Produces Enough Oil for Its Population, but Lacks Refineries to Refine it Because No Permits Have Been Issued Since 1977 to Build a New Refinery
This myth has been told so many times over the past few years, I actually thought it was true until I did some checking to verify it.
On that page, they list 16 new refineries that have been built since 1977, including 2 in 2021. (See chart above.)
[…]
Yes, it is not surprising that the “hefty $2 billion price tag was no match for Exxon, who completed the expansion on time and on budget“, given that they had their most profitable year on record in 2022 and had plenty of money to spend!
To believe what the U.S. Government and their puppet corporate media is saying about the U.S. transitioning away from its dependence on “fossil fuels” is to completely ignore the actual facts that prove it is just the opposite.
Myth #3: Petroleum is a Fossil Fuel with Limited Supplies and is Not Renewable
This is the biggest myth of all, the myth that oil comes from decaying fossils of animals and plant life formed over billions of years.
This is the myth that allows the oil barons to control the world, by simply reducing output and controlling prices to create “energy shortages,” when in fact many scientists believe that petroleum is the second most plentiful liquid on the planet, second only to water.
The alternative “abiotic” view is that oil is continually being produced by the earth.
This information is hard to find in English, and much of the research on “abiotic oil” has been conducted by Russian scientists for many decades now.
[…]
There are a couple of videos I was able to find that give a short summary of “abiotic oil.” One of the main videos that is circulating in the Alternative Media video channels is a presentation given by someone who claims to be a geologist. It is a sloppy presentation, but the copy I found did list the sources, so I will include it here.
But the best work on this topic of “abiotic oil”, in my opinion, is from Dr. John Kenney, the founder and Chairman of JP Kenny Petroleum Ltd, and also a member of the Russian Academy of Sciences – Joint Institute of The Physics of the Earth.
[…]
Here is an interview he did with NPR (National Public Radio) back in 1994. He had just published a paper where he claimed to have created petroleum in a laboratory. Geological Petroleum: The True Origins of Hydrocarbons
Introduction
[…]
The following articles take up, from different perspectives, the modern Russian-Ukrainian theory of deep, abiotic petroleum origins. Because that subject is one of which most persons outside the former U.S.S.R. are not familiar, a short synopsis of it and of its provenance and history, are given now.
1. The essence of the modern Russian-Ukrainian theory of deep, abiotic petroleum origins.
The modern Russian-Ukrainian theory of deep, abiotic petroleum origins is an extensive body of scientific knowledge which covers the subjects of the chemical genesis of the hydrocarbon molecules which comprise natural petroleum, the physical processes which occasion their terrestrial concentration, the dynamical processes of the movement of that material into geological reservoirs of petroleum, and the location and economic production of petroleum.
The modern Russian-Ukrainian theory of deep, abiotic petroleum origins recognizes that petroleum is a primordial material of deep origin which has been erupted into the crust of the Earth. In short, and bluntly, petroleum is not a “fossil fuel” and has no intrinsic connection with dead dinosaurs (or any other biological detritus) “in the sediments” (or anywhere else).
The modern Russian-Ukrainian theory of petroleum is based upon rigorous scientific reasoning, consistent with the laws of physics and chemistry, as well as upon extensive geological observation, and rests squarely in the mainstream of modern physics and chemistry, from which it draws its provenance.
[…]
As will be shown explicitly in a following articles, petroleum has no intrinsic association with biological material. The only hydrocarbon molecules which are exceptions to this point are methane, the hydrocarbon alkane specie of lowest chemical potential of all hydrocarbons, and to a lesser extent, ethene, the alkene of the lowest chemical potential of its homologous molecular series.
Only methane is thermodynamically stable in the pressure and temperature regime of the near-surface crust of the Earth and accordingly can be generated there spontaneously, as is indeed observed for phenomena such as swamp gas or sewer gas.
However, methane is practically the sole hydrocarbon molecule possessing such thermodynamic characteristic in that thermodynamic regime; almost all other reduced hydrocarbon molecules excepting only the lightest ones, are high pressure polymorphs of the hydrogen-carbon system.
Spontaneous genesis of the heavier hydrocarbons which comprise natural petroleum occurs only in multi-kilobar regimes of high pressures, as is shown in a following article.
2. The historical beginnings of petroleum science, – with a touch of irony.
The history of petroleum science might be considered to have begun in the year 1757 when the great Russian scholar Mikhailo V. Lomonosov enunciated the hypothesis that oil might originate from biological detritus.
Applying the rudimentary powers of observation and the necessarily limited analytical skills available in his time, Lomonosov hypothesized that “… ‘rock oil’ [crude oil, or petroleum] originated as the minute bodies of dead marine and other animals which were buried in the sediments and which, over the passage of a great duration of time under the influence of heat and pressure, transformed into ‘rock oil’.”
[…]
The scientists who first rejected Lomonsov’s hypothesis, at the beginning of the nineteenth century, were the famous German naturalist and geologist Alexander von Humboldt and the French chemist and thermodynamicist Louis Joseph Gay-Lussac who together enunciated the proposition that oil is a primordial material erupted from great depth, and is unconnected with any biological matter near the surface of the Earth.
[…]
During the last quarter of the nineteenth century, the great Russian chemist Dmitri Mendeleev also examined and rejected Lomonosov’s hypothesis of a biological origin for petroleum.
[…]
With extraordinary perception, Mendeleev hypothesized the existence of geological structures which he called “deep faults,” and correctly identified such as the locus of weakness in the crust of the Earth via which petroleum would travel from the depths.
3. The enunciation and development of modern petroleum science.
The impetus for development of modern petroleum science came shortly after the end of World War II, and was impelled by recognition by the government of the (then) U.S.S.R. of the crucial necessity of petroleum in modern warfare.
In 1947, the U.S.S.R. had (as its petroleum “experts” then estimated) very limited petroleum reserves, of which the largest were the oil fields in the region of the Abseron peninsula, near the Caspian city Baku in the present country of Azerbaijan.
At that time, the oil fields near Baku were considered to be “depleting” and “nearing exhaustion.”
During World War II, the Soviets had occupied the two northern provinces of Iran; in 1946, the British government had forced them out.
By 1947, the Soviets realized that the American, British, and French were not going to allow them to operate in the middle east, nor in the petroleum producing areas of Africa, nor Indonesia, nor Burma, nor Malaysia, nor anywhere in the far east, nor in Latin America.
The government of the Soviet Union recognized then that new petroleum reserves would have to be discovered and developed within the U.S.S.R.
The government of the Soviet Union initiated a “Manhattan Project” type program, which was given the highest priority to study every aspect of petroleum, to determine its origins and how petroleum reserves are generated, and to ascertain what might be the most effective strategies for petroleum exploration.
At that time, Russia benefited from the excellent educational system which had been introduced after the 1917 revolution. The Russian petroleum community had then almost two generations of highly educated, scientifically competent men and women, ready to take up the problem of petroleum origins.
[…]
In 1951, the modern Russian-Ukrainian theory of deep, abiotic petroleum origins was first enunciated by Nikolai A. Kudryavtsev at the All-Union petroleum geology congress.
[…]
Kudryavtsev was soon joined by numerous other Russian and Ukrainian geologists, among the first of whom were P. N. Kropotkin, K. A. Shakhvarstova, G. N. Dolenko, V. F. Linetskii, V. B. Porfir’yev, and K. A. Anikiev.
[…]
With the passing of the first decade of the modern theory, the failure of the previous, eighteenth century hypothesis of an origin of petroleum from biological detritus in the near-surface sediments had been thoroughly demonstrated, the hypothesis of Lomonosov discredited, and the modern theory firmly established.
[…]
Such predictive proof of the geologists assertions for the modern Russian-Ukrainian theory of deep, abiotic petroleum origins had to wait almost a half century, for such required the development not only of modern quantum statistical mechanics but also that of the techniques of many-body theory and the application of statistical geometry to the analysis of dense fluids, designated scaled particle theory.
Read the full Introduction and other articles at Gasresources.net.
Arizona and Pennsylvania join growing list as victims accuse federal health leaders of murder, assault, abuse, and medical terrorism over COVID-era policies.
On April 8, 2025, the Vires Law Group, in collaboration with the Former Feds Group Freedom Foundation, submitted formal criminal referral requests to the Attorneys General of Arizona and Pennsylvania. These filings urge state prosecutors to open criminal investigations into Dr. Anthony Fauci and other prominent public health and government officials for alleged crimes committed during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The referrals are based on detailed evidence—including the stories of over 80 victims and families—and allege that policies such as lethal hospital protocols, the denial of life-saving treatments, and systemic medical coercion led to widespread injury and death.
Similar filings have been submitted on behalf of constituents in Florida, Louisiana, Texas, Missouri, and Oklahoma, marking a coordinated nationwide effort to pursue justice through state and local authorities:
Individuals Named in the Referral Requests:
Dr. Anthony Fauci – Former Director, NIAID
Dr. Cliff Lane – Deputy Director, NIAID
Dr. Francis Collins – Former Director, NIH
Dr. Deborah Birx – Former White House COVID Response Coordinator
Dr. Rochelle Walensky – Former Director, CDC
Dr. Stephen Hahn – Former Commissioner, FDA
Dr. Janet Woodcock – Principal Deputy Commissioner, FDA (Arizona only)
Dr. Peter Hotez – Dean, National School of Tropical Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine (Arizona only)
Dr. Robert Redfield – Former Director, CDC
Dr. Peter Daszak – President, EcoHealth Alliance
Dr. Ralph Baric – Professor, University of North Carolina
Dr. Rick Bright – Former Director, BARDA
Administrators and healthcare providers at various hospital systems and care facilities in Arizona and Pennsylvania
Combined List of Alleged Crimes Across Both States:
Murder
Involuntary Manslaughter
Negligent Homicide
Assault / Aggravated Assault / Simple Assault
Recklessly Endangering Another Person
Vulnerable Adult Abuse / Emotional Abuse
Neglect and Abuse of a Care-Dependent Person
Kidnapping
Trafficking of Persons for Forced Labor or Services
Criminal Coercion to Restrict Another’s Freedom
Operating a Corrupt Organization
Violations of State Anti-Racketeering Laws
Terrorism
At the time of the release, two county-level criminal investigations are reportedly already underway in other states. The legal teams and victims involved assert that accountability must come through state or local prosecution, given the lack of federal action. These filings represent a significant national effort to seek justice on behalf of families who lost loved ones and were denied proper care during the pandemic.
Recently a two page CIA document declassified in 2011, “Biochemical Resemblance Between Endoparasites and Malignant Tumors”, has made headline news. It reveals research from as early as 1938 demonstrating similar metabolic pathways between endoparasites (that live inside host organisms) and malignant tumours, naming two compounds found to be effective against both.
Epidemiologist Nicolas Hulscher articulates the 50 year setback in cancer treatment research resulting from this decades-long information suppression. The cost is the health and lives of many millions, concurrent with intergenerational financial hardship to families in direct correlation with increased corporate profits.
Although a number of antiparasitic drugs including ivermectin, mebendazole and niclosamide have proven anti-cancer effects it is important to recognize that cancer is NOT a parasitic disease as has been suggested in the “popular press” and by misguided clinicians. There is no evidence that cancer is caused by or related to any parasitic disease. These drugs act via specific biochemical pathways specific to the cancer cell which are distinct from their anti-parasitic mechanisms of action.
Evidence of Ongoing Medical Crimes
Classifying such potentially life saving information as a risk to national defense appears to be an early example of medical censorship protecting pharmaceutical industry profits, which intensified so aggressively in 2020. Thousands of doctors in New Zealand, Australia, the UK, Canada, the USA and beyond, now face public punishment should their actions threaten profit margins. Learn more at the World Council For Health’s webinar series, Punished for Protecting Patients (Part 1 and Part 2). We have written extensively about the origins of global censorship through corporatised centralisation of regulatory authorities, for example here, here and here.
The incidence of cancers has increased exponentially worldwide since the universal COVID-19 vaccination program began at the end of 2020. These cancers tend to present at an advanced stage, progress rapidly, and occur in younger patients. Additionally, some patients previously in remission have been reported to develop uncontrolled cancer relapses shortly after receiving a COVID-19 vaccination (usually a booster). The temporal association between these cancers and COVID-19 vaccination is undeniable. These observations have given rise to the term “turbo-cancers.”
It is an unlikely coincidence that in December 2023 Pfizer acquired Seagen Inc., “a global biotechnology company that discovers, develops and commercializes transformative cancer medicines.” Total purchase cost was US$43 billion for a company with an annual revenue of $2 billion in 2022. This infers insider trading by a company who knew that cancer was about to become highly lucrative business.
The Burgeoning Revolution in Cancer Treatment
Despite horrific levels of censorship being foisted upon scientific and medical communities, a medical revolution is skyrocketing thanks to the gallant efforts of defiant, competent and ethical trailblazers. The most astonishing reports to date have come from immunologist / oncologist Dr William Makis whose personal story embodies the backbone required against reprehensible medical crimes being normalised in health care systems at the cost of human health and life.
Image captured for criticism/review and reporting current events under Fair Dealing – The Copyright Act 1994
On 7 April 2026 a preprint study, Real-World Clinical Outcomes of Ivermectin and Mebendazole in Cancer Patients: Results from a Prospective Observational Cohort was published with extremely promising results. The researchers enrolled 197 patients with diverse clinical profiles, a median duration since diagnosis of 1.2 years, and almost 40% of whom had active disease progression at study initiation. Ivermectin and mebendazole were added to existing treatments which included 68.9% on conventional therapies (surgery, chemotherapy and radiotherapy). After six months, 32.8% of study participants reported no current evidence of disease; 15.6% reported disease regression; 36.1% reported stabilised disease; and 15.6% reported disease progression. Minimal side effects requiring minor dose adjustments were reported by 25.4%.
While these findings offer a compelling clinical signal for therapeutic benefit from these anti-parasitic medications, the authors acknowledge a number of study design limitations and argue for “Urgent prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials” to validate the results and optimise treatment doses.
Dr Joseph Ladapo, Surgeon General for the state of Florida, announced in October 2025 that his government have committed US$60 million for research into the use of repurposed antiparasitic drugs in cancer treatment. This appears to be in partnership with Dr Makis who spoke with journalist Kim Iversen on the subject in February 2025.
There are over 300 peer reviewed studies that have been published with ivermectin and cancer. Looking at the mechanisms of action … It’s acting on molecular pathways inside the cells, pathways that affect proliferation of cells … It can act on mechanisms of cancer metastasising for example … It goes after cancer stem cells … notoriously difficult to kill. In fact they may be the reason why … the majority of chemotherapy is palliative … Yet ivermectin is able to identify those cells, recognise that those cancer cells are different from normal cells and is able to kill them or inhibit them … This is a drug that’s been used around the world. Four billion doses given. Fifteen times safer than aspirin. 750 Times safer than remdesivir. And 17,000 times safer than covid vaccines.
French skies are filled with surveillance drones scanning for “non-compliant” cattle… because brave farmers DARE to refuse the Gates-backed jab mandates.
Police raids in the dead of night. Herds cornered. Forced injections at gunpoint.
This isn’t public health.
This is biological warfare on your dinner plate.
They’re not just vaccinating animals — they’re poisoning the food chain, engineering dependency, and crushing anyone who stands in the way of total control over what ends up on your table.
Independent farms? Targeted.
Organic herds? Marked for destruction.
Farmers who say NO? Treated like terrorists.
While the mainstream cheers “food safety,” the real agenda is crystal clear: weaken the population, control the supply, and make sure every bite comes with their experimental cocktail.
The globalist machine doesn’t stop at humans anymore. Now they’re coming for the livestock… and by extension, YOU.
But there IS resistance rising.
In the shadows of this madness, true fighters are building unbreakable alternatives — decentralized, transparent, and outside their reach.
DUBAI, United Arab Emirates (AP) — The United Arab Emirates said Tuesday it will leave OPEC effective May 1, stripping the oil cartel of its third-largest producer and further weakening its leverage over global oil supplies and prices.
The UAE’s decision had been rumored as a possibility for some time, as it pushed back in recent years against OPEC production quotas it felt had been too low — meaning it wasn’t able to sell as much oil to the world as it had wanted.
“Having invested heavily in expanding energy production capacity in recent years, the bigger pictue is that the UAE has been itching to pump more oil,” Capital Economics wrote in an analysis. “The ties binding OPEC members together have loosened,” it said, particularly after Qatar withdrew from the cartel in 2019.
Regional politics are also likely at play. The UAE has had increasingly frosty relations with Saudi Arabia, OPEC’s largest producer, over political and economic matters in the Mideast, even after both came under attack by fellow OPEC member Iran during the war.
No immediate impact likely for world oil markets
The UAE’s withdrawal from OPEC won’t necessarily have any immediate effects in markets. That’s because world oil supplies are sharply constrained by the war in Iran, which has closed off the Strait of Hormuz, a waterway through which one-fifth of global oil supplies — including much of the UAE’s — is transported. On Tuesday, Brent crude, the international benchmark, traded above $111 a barrel, or more than 50% above its prewar price.
OPEC accounts for roughly 40% of the world’s oil output, but its market power had been waning in recent years as the United States ramped up production. While Saudi Arabia had been producing more than 10 million barrels of oil a day before the war, the U.S. pumps more than 13 million barrels a day.
U.S. President Donald Trump has been a steady critic of the cartel during his two terms in the White House.
The UAE, which joined OPEC through its emirate of Abu Dhabi in 1967, had been producing around 3.4 million barrels of crude a day just before the U.S.-Israeli war with Iran began on Feb. 28. Analysts say it has capacity to produce roughly 5 million barrels a day.
In its announcement on Tuesday, made via its state-run WAM news agency, the UAE said it also would leave the wider OPEC+ group, which Russia had led to try to stabilize oil prices.
“This decision reflects the UAE’s long-term strategic and economic vision and evolving energy profile, including accelerated investment in domestic energy production,” the UAE said, adding that it would bring “additional production to market in a gradual and measured manner, aligned with demand and market conditions.”
The UAE’s withdrawal removes one of OPEC’s few members with the ability to quickly increase production, said Jorge Leon, head of geopolitical analysis at Rystad Energy.
“A structurally weaker OPEC, with less spare capacity concentrated within the group, will find it increasingly difficult to calibrate supply and stabilize prices,” he said.
Saudi Arabia, UAE increasingly at odds
Saudi Arabia and the UAE increasingly have competed over economic issues and regional politics, particularly in the Red Sea area. The two countries had jointly fought against Yemen’s Iran-backed Houthi rebels in 2015. However, that coalition broke down into recriminations in late December, when Saudi Arabia bombed what it described as a weapons shipment bound for Yemeni separatists backed by the UAE.
As tensions rose in recent months, Saudi broadcasters long based in Dubai, the economic hub of the UAE, have pulled back to the kingdom.
“This exit of OPEC fits into the UAE need for flexibility with key energy consumers as well — including a future relationship with China and a more competitive relationship with Saudi Arabia,” said Karen Young, a senior research scholar at Columbia University’s Center on Global Energy Policy.
While Saudi Arabia and OPEC had no immediate reaction, Emirati Energy Minister Suhail al-Mazrouei insisted his country’s decision did not stem from any dispute with its Gulf neighbor.
“We’ve been working together for years and years. We have the highest respect for the Saudis for leading OPEC,” al-Mazrouei told CNBC.
However, the UAE sent its foreign minister rather than its ruler to a Gulf Arab leaders’ meeting held Tuesday in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, hosted by Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman.
The UAE hosted the United Nations COP28 climate talks in 2023, a conference that ended for the first time with a pledge by nearly 200 countries to move away from planet-warming fossil fuels. But the UAE still plans to increase its production capacity in the coming years, even as it pursues more clean energy at home, a move decried by climate activists.
“The demand for power is going to go up and up and up,” U.S. Interior Secretary Doug Burgum told an Abu Dhabi oil conference in November. “Today’s the day to announce that there is no energy transition. There is only energy addition.”
He drew widespread applause from his Emirati hosts.
Passenger flights between Iran and China, as well as between Iran and Russia, have resumed after a two-month suspension caused by the US-Israeli war of aggression against Iran, state media from both countries reported on Tuesday.
CGTN, a Chinese state media outlet, announced that passenger flights between Iran and China have resumed for the first time in 60 days.
Mahan Air, Iran’s largest airline, announced the resumption of select China-Iran passenger routes, including those between Tehran and major Chinese cities of Shanghai, Guangzhou and Beijing.
Meanwhile, Russia’s Sputnik news agency reported that the first Tehran-Moscow flight and its return route resumed on Tuesday after the pause.
The flights had been suspended following the launch of the US-Israeli war on Iran.
In response, Iran’s armed forces carried out 100 waves of retaliatory strikes under Operation True Promise 4, launching hundreds of ballistic and hypersonic missiles, as well as drones, against American military bases throughout West Asia and Israeli positions in the occupied territories.
A fragile ceasefire, brokered by Pakistan, took effect in early April and has largely held, though tensions remain high.
The United States has imposed a naval blockade on Iranian ports, which Tehran considers illegal and a violation of the truce.
The resumption of flights by two major strategic partners of Iran signals a gradual return to normalcy.
China and Russia have consistently supported Iran diplomatically throughout the war, condemning US-Israeli aggression at the United Nations and calling for a negotiated end to the war of aggression.
Iran resumed commercial flights from Tehran’s international airport over the weekend for the first time since the war began.
Flights for Istanbul, Muscat and the Saudi Arabian city of Medina took off from Imam Khomeini International Airport on Saturday.
The Most Revolutionary Act 
