Understanding Iran: Does Trump?

March 30, 2026

Protests in Iran
Source: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:12_January_demonstrations_in_Tehran_(107).jpg

In the vacuum left by the U.S. President’s failure to provide a coherent rationale behind America and Israel’s military assault on Iran, many are concerned about the geopolitical and economic consequences for the Middle East and, indeed, the whole world, Moreover, what further military plans might an emboldened Trump contemplate?

The idea in Washington and Tel Aviv that bombing Iran will somehow trigger a popular uprising is not strategy—it’s wishful thinking. Bombs can degrade infrastructure. They can weaken capabilities, but they do not manufacture organized political alternatives.

– Ali Vaez, Iran Senior Advisor
at the International Crisis Group

Decisions guided by whims are naive prospects of success. When a commander-in-chief of the strongest military decides to go to war based on whims, Earth’s orbit is perturbed. Its people suffer. Playing with the whims of should-I-or-should-I-not in the question of war with Iran is insane. Only a psychopath would do that. First, decisions on that order should have a clear reason for citizens.

With no indication of a benefit to any side, the best than can happen now, aside from many innocent people being killed, is a ceasefire with minuscule gains, if any.

What is Donald Trump’s reason for this incomprehensible war? Is it about regime change, support for protesters, ending weapons-grade nuclear material, oil, bribe-rentals of the U.S. military from Middle East countries, or distractions from the Epstein files? My understanding of war is complex, but I confess that this new war of the year is disturbing, problematic, and risky, but could have succeeded with unhasty, intelligent planning. Yet with no indication of a benefit to any side, the best that can happen now, aside from many innocent people being killed, is a ceasefire with minuscule gains, if any. Surely, the U.S. Pentagon has calculated the odds of victory, the cost of casualties, and infrastructure destruction. Morals of killing and wounding are at issue, but in war games, they are not considered to be a bother. In every war, there are expectations and uncontrolled mistakes. Without an intelligent plan for ending a war, planners should clearly advise their leaders whether it is a strong benefit to start a war.

The nuclear issue

Is it about nuclear weapons? If so, why not negotiate with more patience?

Who is telling the truth in those quotes? It is difficult to know why this war started with such a brief diplomatic attempt. It could have been for many reasons that are not grounds for war. Was it started from the whims of glory at taking down the Ayatollah, Ali Khamenei, from plots to acquire beach fronts in Sang-e Siyah for Trump hotels, or a hopeful distraction from the Epstein files? Distractions are part of the art of Trump deals. His prospects might succeed, but mostly at the expense of the American, Iranian, and Middle Eastern people.

The rationale of war

My readers generally know that I write about understanding war, not about the specific cases of wars. My angle is to understand the consequences of wars in general terms, but sometimes, rarely, I use specific examples of war as models of what could go right or wrong. In this case, I have no choice but to express my opinion. The news of this war in the Middle East has been front and center every day and every hour since February 28, 2026. It would be superfluous for me to bring in news that has already been posted so repeatedly that we know enough to judge the implications of this war. However, I raise a few issues that have not been meaningfully addressed, and pose this question to my readers: In news about wars, do we have an impression of how wars work, regarding an imagined battlefield? We see photos of bombings and destruction, plumes of smoke rising in the distance, rubble in the streets, explosions through satellite tracking and imagery, damage to buildings, and grieving families. Tehran is a metropolis of over 9 million inhabitants living in 22 municipal districts covering well over 2,000 streets, squares, and avenues. It is an immense and beautiful city that is impossible to destroy without a WWII-type fire-bombing, though conventional bombing can create an infrastructure mess that is not justified by any truthful reasoning.

North of Tehran skyline view and a tree-lined avenue
Credit: Ninara from Helsinki Finland
Source: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:North_of_Tehran_Skyline_view.jpg

This war’s objective

Think about the war this way: The U.S. surely knows that Iran is a country with a population of 92 million with an elite military force of almost 190,000 active Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) members, besides a regular conventional force of approximately 400,000 active-duty personnel. In addition, there is the Quds Force, a non-state proxy group that commands proxy militias, including Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Houthis, and Shia, working in Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan.

Is the U.S. equipped to handle that country, with hundreds of thousands of guns and new, angry, multiple leaderships scattered throughout the country? What could be the objective for settlement, and with whom? Is there a U.S. misunderstanding of Iran’s forces that are almost everywhere in the Middle East? On February 28th, soon after the U.S. began its war with Iran, Trump posted an 8-minute video on Truth Social calling for the IRGC members, the armed forces, and police to disarm. “Lay down your weapons,” he said, “and have complete immunity, or in the alternative face certain death.” ^[1]

The power of comprehension?

Has he misunderstood Iran? Now, Trump is saying that there would be no deal other than “unconditional surrender.” Seriously?! Iran is not Venezuela. A comment like that shows that Trump does not understand the country. Some IRGC members and a few conventional forces might agree to lay down their weapons and join the resistance, but hardly enough to make a difference. Immediately after that message, Iran retaliated with drone and missile attacks on Israel and multiple Arab states that host U.S. assets in the region.

Did Trump not see the likely possibility that Iran might launch hundreds of ballistic missiles and drones across the Gulf? Did he not see the possible consequences of a widened scope of civilian casualties, airport closings, threatening oil transports, and container shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, creating what the International Energy Agency called “the biggest disruption to the oil market in history”? Did he consider the likely repercussions that could come from the cost of shipping insurance, the disruption of crucial fertilizer shipments that keep farms all over the world in operation, and raw materials to make parts for cars? Did he not know that killing a religious leader of a country would only cause an escalated response in ways we cannot yet know? Did he consider how the price of gas would inflate? Did he know that Russia would help Iran hit the CIA facility in the Saudi Capital, and destabilize U.S. Patriot PAC-3 anti-ballistic missile batteries protecting a U.S. Navy base in Bahrain? Did he know that Russia would provide Iran with intelligence to target U.S. forces throughout the Middle East? Did he not see that the U.S. economy might face a recession due to soaring oil prices?

Trump must understand that he cannot control the economic fallout from this war, because once supply changes hit, it takes months to fix them, if they can be fixed.

Timeline objectives according to Trump

Feb 28. “for these reasons, the United States military has undertaken a massive and ongoing operation to prevent this very wicked, radical dictatorship from threatening America and our core national security interests.”
March 1. “an Iranian regime armed with long-range missiles and nuclear weapons would be a dire threat to every American. We cannot allow a nation that raises terrorist armies to possess such weapons, that would allow them to extort the world to their evil will.”
March 2. “An Iranian regime armed with long-range missiles and nuclear weapons would be an intolerable threat to the Middle East, but also to the American people. Our country itself would be under threat, and it was very nearly under threat.”
March 3. “They were going to attack. If we didn’t do it, they were going to attack first … So, if anything, I might have forced Israel’s hand, but Israel was ready, and we were ready. The bottom line is this: The president determined we were not going to get hit first. It’s that simple, guys.”
March 6. “The assistance, which has not been previously reported, signals that the rapidly expanding conflict now features one of the America’s chief nuclear-armed competitors with exquisite intelligence capabilities.” ^[2]
March 6. “There will be no deal with Iran except UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER! After that, and the selection of a GREAT & ACCEPTABLE Leader(s), we, and many of our wonderful and very brave allies and partners, will work tirelessly to bring Iran back from the brink of destruction, making it economically bigger, better, and stronger than ever before.”
March 9. In a phone interview with White House correspondent Weijia Jiang, Trump said, “I think the war is very complete, pretty much. … not ruling out troops or a draft.”
March 10. The military objectives are “pretty well complete.”
March 11. Asked by a White House reporter to clarify, he answered, “No, no, no. It’s not pretty much over. Where did you hear that? Who told you that fake news?”

Trump’s confusing statements revolve around the possibility of threat to America. However, on March 17^th, we learned from Joe Kent, the Director of the National Counterintelligence Center, through his resignation letter to the President, “After much reflection, I have decided to resign from my position as Director of the National Counterterrorism Center, effective today. I cannot in good conscience support the ongoing war in Iran. Iran posed not an imminent threat to our nation.” [3] In Trump’s daily intelligence briefing, he must have learned that there was no imminent threat to the U.S. We do not know what he knows but every day we see him contradict himself in his lies.

Acting on impulse

His problem is that he thinks by considering the next step without bothering to bring in the consequences from that first step to the next move and its consequences. Surely, the President’s Daily Brief (PDB) led by the CIA and the Director of National Intelligence, which gives Trump classified top-secret reports, gives him assessments on the potential of the war and tells him that the military operations will not unseat the regime. He doesn’t take PDB advice seriously because he doggedly believes that his whims are his foretokens, so he picks a next-step countermove without considering the deeper domino consequences. [4] Surely, the PDB has given him difficult options with enough advice for carrying out an operation that understands Iran’s reactions. But each of his moves comes from impulses driven by the problem of his impostor syndrome. Somewhere deep down in his ego is a query of whether he is fit to be a president. So, he chose an operation that had not been thought out. “It’s going to work very easily,” he said, “It’s going to work like in Venezuela.” Ha! And so, he is now grappling with a message that could shine some light on the rationale and objectives. What will it be tomorrow for strategic allusions? What will happen when the U.S. leaves the Middle East? With over 14 countries in that area fighting each other, they will all be exposed to attacks that could either come from governments or proxy militias.

What happened in the first five weeks of the Iraq war, when President George W. Bush stood on the USS Abraham Lincoln declaring “Mission accomplished.” That war lasted almost nine years. On March 9, in an interview with CBS News, Trump, who never admits his mistakes, said, “I think it’s very complete pretty much … not ruling out troops or a draft.” Watch: he will declare victory. But accomplishment of what? Of toppling a regime, destroying enriched uranium, supporting protests, protection of U.S. national security, UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER? Which is it? None will be accomplished. His impostor syndrome is weighing his declining economic future, and a likely political rupture of his confused MAGA base.

I learned early on that it is never a good idea for a nation to strip an enemy so naked of its dignity that it feels that it has nothing left to lose. It usually comes back to haunt you.

— Thomas L. Friedman

So, what was all this war for?

We must question: What was all this for? Without a clear objective, public support, what exactly has been driving this war? The consequences are devastating. Trump can always declare victory, but of what? With no regime change, no change in nuclear commitment, no help for the protesters, and no ex-U.S. allies extending help, WAIT AND SEE, he will be gaspingly denying the truth behind what he wished to accomplish, why this war is happening, and looking for ways to get out of his wreckage.

By trumpeting unachievable objectives—unconditional surrender, regime change—as his war aims, Trump has given his enemies the opportunity to claim survival as victory. He’s left himself with no evident end point to what he recently called a ‘short-term excursion.

—Franklin Foer, Staff Writer for The Atlantic ^[5]

Two people are behind this war—Trump and Netanyahu. When someone creates an event, for example, starts a war, and cannot give a rational reason, one might suspect the intention is hidden somewhere under a pile of hidden variables that foretell risky consequences. In other words, secrets that should not be revealed because of risky consequences or foolish reasons. Secrets, though, most always have clues.

The world as real estate

When someone acquires power, character changes, partly because power requires significance. In the cases of those who have inferior cognitive abilities, impostor syndrome is a magnet reaching for power in ways that diminish smart reasoning. Those who hang on don’t have the cognitive capacities that require views beyond two, three, or four moves ahead. Those are the leaders to worry about. Almost two years ago, just when he was reelected to be president, I wrote a piece portending that Trump would end up doing something foolish enough to start a war that he cannot win. My prophecy is now evident.

We see Trump’s moves are without much depth of war knowledge; he lacks an alertness of second, third and fourth moves that he cannot, or does not want to see.

Strait of Hormuz, a 21-mile eye of the needle.
20% of the world’s oil crosses the Strait.
Didn’t he think about that before attacking Iran?

As I wrote in my previous article, the current commander-in-chief of the U.S. military works by his own wishful whims that do not match the evidential facts coming from the Office of National Intelligence. His intellect suits forceful real-estate deal making. In that kind of brutal cleverness, his deals have risks that could wobble a profit margin graph, though a country the size of the United States with a population of 343 million banking on government values, safety, and a balanced economy for all, risks more than a wobbling deal that could bankrupt the entire country and send humans into battles that they may or may not contain.

The consequences of not understanding

In any conflict, there must be planning for the worst. When 20 percent of the world’s fossil fuel energy flows through the Strait of Hormuz, threats of blowing up oil tankers should not be a surprise. Shipping companies are unwilling to take the risks of moving ships through the Strait, especially after they know that the Persian Gulf is filled with mines. Also, energy companies are likely to turn off refining operations because storage of refined oil is limited.

We can see the domino effect of geopolitics that seems to be missed by the Trump administration, though the PDBs must have given Trump a briefing about all of this before he decided to go to war with an extremely belligerent country. Trump may have known the possibilities of these upsets, thinking that if the war were to end quickly, there would not be much of a disruption of oil production and shipment. Even if the war were to end today, it would still take weeks or months to restart production and replenish the deliveries to other countries far from the Gulf. In either case—whether the war ends quickly or not—a global economic impact will be the result of poor planning by the commander-in-chief who makes up his mind on matters that miss clear negotiation opportunities and face the risks of so many unknown conflict possibilities that bring geopolitical chaos, not just to the Middle East but far beyond. By not thinking this through, war starts with intentions of a quick end but continues far beyond what was ever expected.

We have seen this so many times before, and yet we always think we know better. Remember that very long war between Iraq and Iran that started with expectations of a quick surrender, yet ended almost eight years later. Did the wars in Vietnam and Afghanistan teach us to be aware of the false startup ambitions? Wars under diplomatic hopelessness, like, especially, this one, start with misguided impatience that locks up compromises that could benefit both sides, reduce the cost in economies and lives, and bring peace to citizens who care far more about their day-to-day struggles than who wins the trophies of military history. No side fully wins in any war, except those arms dealers who always want wars to continue.

The real objective

With no clear motives – regime change, support for protesters, ending weapons-grade nuclear material, oil, or bribe-rentals of the U.S. military from Middle East countries – and no apparent possible outcome, even after the killing of supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei along with approximately 48 of Iran’s senior leaders and officials, the gambit is just wishful thinking, for nobody knows how well this war will go. So why? If the object is a negotiated regime change, why create more difficulty by targeting all those officials for killing? That questions the reason for regime change, for who, in a high government position, will be left to deal with it in the end?

With no clear motives and no apparent possible outcome, the gambit is just wishful thinking, for nobody knows how well this war will go.

Could this war’s initiating objective be the nuclear threat? On March 1st, Trump claimed that Iran was two weeks away from having a nuclear bomb. It was just one of several confounding justifications for starting the war. That one is simply not true. The House Intelligence Committee said there is no evidence to back up that claim. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) knows that Iran has 60 percent enriched uranium, which it could use to make a bomb. It is possible that Iran could have enough material for a bomb, but that is just the first step, not one that makes a bomb. According to Joseph Cirincione, Vice Chair of The Center for International Policy Board, in an interview with Alex Witt of MS NOW, said, “You have to turn that enriched uranium, 90 percent enriched uranium into a metal; you have to shape it into the components of the bomb; you have to assemble the bomb; you have to have a bomb design. … And then you have to test that weapon.” If they succeed with all that, they might have a crude bomb. But then there is the phase of putting that bomb on a warhead.

The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) employs thousands of nonpolitical analysts who scour hints of threats to American national security under its mission to analyze intelligence for U.S. leaders and for the PDB. In a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing on March 19th, Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence, in her opening statement, said that Iran’s nuclear enrichment program was “obliterated” with no efforts since then to try to rebuild its enrichment capacity. During that hearing Senator Jon Ossoff asked about an “imminent nuclear threat posed by the Iranian regime.” She answered, with too much inconsistency in trying to cover for the president, “It is not a responsibility of the intelligence community to determine what is or is not an imminent threat.”^[6]

Representative Joaquin Castro questioning Gabbard in a March 2026 House Intelligence Committee hearing ^[7]

Joaquin Castro: What does their Intelligence Committee assess Israel’s goals in this war, in this war to be? And are those qoals aligned with the goals of the United States?

Tulsi Gabbard: In thinking carefully about what can be said in this open setting versus a closed setting…

Castro: Are the goals aligned

Gabbard: The objectives that have been laid out by the President are different from the objectives that have been laid out by Israeli government.

Castro: And how do they differ?

Gabbard: We can see through the operations that the Israeli government has been focused on, uh, destabilizing the Iranian leadership and taking out several members, obviously beginning with the Ayatollah, the supreme leader and they continue to focus on that effort.

Castro: How does that differ from our goals?

Gabbard: The President has stated that his objectives are to, uh, destroy Iran’s ballistic missile launching capabilities, then ballistic missile production capacity, and then Navy, their IRGC Navy.

War: politics by other means?

Trump missed a great opportunity by walking away from diplomatic negotiations. Diplomacy is never easy; it requires an immense amount of time along with a great number of concessions. In the case of ending negotiations before the war began, his team was locked in his usual negotiation tactics, schemes that might work to win real estate deals that are far simpler than the prevention of war. Negotiations in preventing war must involve understanding the interconnectedness of economics and geopolitics, extending to countries beyond the hostilities. With that understanding, negotiations have a purpose – not winning a war, but rather the settlement that brings peace and prosperity to both sides. Without that consideration, negotiations are ineffective. Diplomacy can be tough, but war is not about toughness. It is about the strength and skills of negotiators.

So, there we have it: the president of the U.S. has no understanding of the point of military negotiations, and too few advisors to forward legitimate reasons. He is frightened, so he will say, “Okay, we have killed the Ayatollah’s father, family, significant intelligence officials, and commanders of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. So, let’s leave with the victory of accomplished goals.” But the Iranians are not going to desist from carrying out their attacks, partly because the U.S. did kill Ali Khamenei. How will he claim victory after Iran continues to attack, which they will?

A military campaign with no coherent endgame

The nuclear bomb program was one reason before Trump changed his reason to Iran close to having missiles that could reach the U.S., then changed it again to say Iran was “going to attack first,” against the advice from his PDBs. None of those reasons is close to being true. Besides, he is making things up as he goes. Reasons must link to serious objectives. If we do not know the reason for this war, we also do not know the clear objectives. The president started this war, and so he must have a clear reason and a clear objective; however, we keep getting different stories about objectives. For example, tweaks of messaging can change opinions; is the objective regime change or regime exhaustion, protecting protesters, or using them? Could this entangled mystery web of reasoning and purpose be a deliberate scheme to keep the story flexible enough to spin a declaration of victory after the war ends? He will come up with a “mission accomplished” slogan in a cunning way of presenting some unseen objective. On the one hand, it gives him a way to tell the public that the U.S. succeeded, and on the other, by waiting to explain reasons and objectives until after the war. He could put the administration in a tough position where expectations will be unmet by the final explanation, raising doubts. However, in a military reality, this war is going to go on for a long, long time.

Ambiguity in policy descriptions always raises doubts. So, those kinds of public message tactics risk unanticipated problems that can clash with the true objectives. Remember Secretary of State Colin Powell’s speech to the UN Security Council about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. It was a lie that continues to disturb most Americans. ^[8]When the public is told lies, it generates the natural tendency for people to construct a nebulous imagination, segueing into assumptions that bounce through social networks eager for new conspiracy theories. Remember when President George W. Bush declared, “Mission accomplished” in a televised speech aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier, six weeks after the start of the U.S.–Iraq war that lasted nearly nine years? That same aircraft carrier is back again, now conducting strikes and operations in the Middle East. Wait and watch for another “Mission accomplished” speech likely to be within the next six weeks. It is the game that is played with the public.

We have never known a war that started without a known reason

It is difficult to understand how a war like this happens, but there are a few clues that could give some indication of what exactly precipitated it. We will never know how much influence Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had before the war started. Could it be that he was the one, another strong man of unleashed power on Trump’s admiration list, who brought us into that war? Trump craves recognition in the club of strongmen. But there is another reason, one more forceful.

If you are looking for a more solid reason, look no further than the money and who benefits; read my article “Why Are There So Many Wars, Especially Now? An Obscure Brilliance of Arms Dealing Keeps Wars Coming” ^[9] Where there are wars, there are arms providers. When there are arms providers, there will be wars. And with more wars, there will be more dealers earning excessive profits eager to heat arms markets to inflate prices and keep those wars going. That is the obscure brilliance of arms dealing. To pick one example, from the time of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine till now, weapon suppliers to that war have quadrupled their prices.^[10]

Operation Epic Fury, the code name for the military campaign, is estimated to cost approximately $891.4 million each day. So, we must wonder who is paying whom. If that war continues for another three months, the bill will be over $1.2 trillion. According to the U.S. Office of Management and Budget, the estimate adds 10 percent to include the costs “for higher aircraft sortie rates, more ship steaming hours, heightened alert levels, extended deployments, and additional personnel compensation, such as family separation allowances and hazard pay.” ^[11] And now, just one month into the war, the Pentagon is asking for $200 billion to keep funding the war, close to one quarter of the Pentagon’s annual budget, money that could reverse Trump’s cuts in Medicaid’s health insurance and food stamp programs that tens of millions of Americans rely on. So, I ask again: Where is all that money going to?

Arms dealers, of course! If we follow the money, it comes from the U.S. Treasury, which pays suppliers for replenished supplies. Those are mostly large companies that manufacture bombs, planes, ammunition, and enormous amounts of fuel. Much of that money goes indirectly to stock market holders.

US Military Bases in the Middle East
Source: https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#sent/QgrcJHsTgFkQwkmsppzjPQXVqdCsLtQQwtV?projector=1&messagePartId=0.1

The price of victory

Now, let’s take a deep breath to ask: What could happen if this war ends in a Trump victory? I’m not alone in this quandary over victory; many foreign affairs analysts have said this before me. With a real victory, say, unconditional surrender, the danger to the entire world will worsen. Iran, a terrorist-supported country, could turn to a peace-loving existence. That could happen. The bravado would spin new whims and instincts to reinforce his belief that his success is inevitable, with no expense to himself. Imagine how wildly Trump will behave, then. His partial success with Venezuela pumped blood to his head, thirsting for another war. He found another. What, then, will happen if Iran does surrender unconditionally? We needn’t speculate. ^[12]Watch out, Cuba, Colombia, Greenland, even Canada. Mexico? It would take a psychopath to have such a whim.

Truth: the first casualty of war?

I am grateful to The World Financial Review (TWFR) for accepting the articles in my column. It brings a trust of truth as an independent magazine immune from the threats of the current Trump regime attempting to revoke American media licenses over Iran War coverage. Brendan Carr, Chairman of the U.S. Federal Communications Commission, accused broadcasters of “running hoaxes and news distortions” with warnings to “correct course before their license renewals come up.” ^[13]Though I worry about how Mr. Carr’s threats will play out, I will not be timid about telling what I believe to be true, free speech, thanks to TWFR.

Here we are in a mess of geopolitical dynamics, without a coalition of allies willing to open the Strait of Hormuz. With half the world struggling with the price of oil, and perhaps the price of everything, we have no choice but to wait this dooming war out. I know that not everyone would agree with me on the issues of this war. I can also realize how few who study war can support this war. However, we must recognize that venturing into a war—any war—is a risk that any country must carefully assess and not just rely on the power of weapons.

Let’s not worry too much; this will end, and so will he, though we don’t know when.

Go to top

About the Author

Joseph Mazur is an Emeritus Professor of Mathematics at Emerson College’s Marlboro Institute for Liberal Arts & Interdisciplinary Studies. He is a recipient of fellowships from the Guggenheim, Bogliasco, and Rockefeller Foundations, and the author of eight acclaimed popular nonfiction books. His latest book is The Clock Mirage: Our Myth of Measured Time (Yale).

Notes

^[1] https://www.npr.org/transcripts/nx-s1-5731573#:~:text=PRESIDENT%20DONALD%20TRUMP:%20I%20once,across%20the%20Middle%20Eastern%20country.

^[2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2026/03/06/russia-iran-intelligence-us-targets/

^[3] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2026/03/17/us/joe-kent-resignation-letter-iran.html

^[4] https://www.intelligence.gov/publics-daily-brief/presidents-daily-brief#:~:text=The%20PDB%20contains%20some%20of,Johnson%20%2C%20Nixon%2C%20and%20Ford%20.

^[5] https://www.theatlantic.com/international/2026/03/iran-war-trump/686314/

^[6] https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/18/us/politics/tulsi-gabbard-iran-trump.html?nl=today%27s-headlines&segment_id=216883

^[7] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFh9byeKSNk

^[8] https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB80/

^[9] https://worldfinancialreview.com/why-are-there-so-many-wars-especially-now-an-obscure-brilliance-of-arms-dealing-keeps-wars-coming/

^[10] https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/inside-europes-drive-get-ammunition-ukraine-russia-advances-2024-03-06/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=Newsletter&utm_campaign=Daily-Briefing&utm_term=030624&user_email=bb759ff36f2ff61999abd346c905873915c01036c5a2b4978fb83f6b22e77fde

^[11] https://www.csis.org/analysis/37-billion-estimated-cost-epic-furys-first-100-hours#:~:text=The%20baseline%20costs%20from%20the,CSIS%20estimated%20order%20of%20battle.&text=Admiral%20Cooper’s%20update%20on%20March,complete%2C%20according%20to%20General%20Caine.

^[12] https://foreignpolicy.com/2026/03/20/us-trump-victory-iran-war-dangers/?tpcc=fp_this_week&utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=FP%20This%20Week%20-%20032326&utm_term=fp_this_week

^[13] https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/14/world/middleeast/fcc-broadcasters-iran-war.html?nl=breaking-news&segment_id=216743

Taming the Gen AI Disruption With Regular Check-ins

March 30, 2026

By Dr. Gleb Tsipursky

The integration of Generative AI (Gen AI) into business operations presents immense opportunities for leaders, along with serious challenges and risks. While the potential benefits are transformative, navigating the complexities of Gen AI projects requires a nuanced approach that balances strategic oversight with fostering a culture of innovation. A key element of this approach is the implementation of regular, strategically designed check-ins. While some might feel worried that these check-ins represent micromanagement, they are anything but; rather, they serve as crucial touchpoints for monitoring progress, evaluating the need for additional resources, providing constructive feedback, fostering collaboration, and ensuring alignment with overarching business objectives. In other words, such check-ins serve as a crucial managerial “trust, but verify” tool, deployed by the more skilled managers to keep projects and teams aligned, on track, and appropriately resourced.

Structuring Effective Progress Reviews to Leverage Gen AI Disruption

Without psychological safety, teams may be hesitant to share critical information, leading to delays, inefficiencies, and even project failure.

Effective Gen AI project management requires a shift in mindset. Traditional project management methodologies, focused on rigid timelines and pre-defined outcomes, often fall short when applied to the iterative and experimental nature of Gen AI development. Instead, a more agile and adaptive approach is needed, one that embraces experimentation, learning from failures, and continuous refinement. Regular check-ins provide the framework for this adaptive approach.

The format of these reviews should be tailored to the specific project’s complexity and scale. Options include:

Regular Meetings: Bi-weekly or monthly meetings provide a consistent cadence for updates and discussions
Milestone Reviews: Check-ins tied to specific project phases (e.g., model training completion, prototype development) offer targeted evaluation points
Informal Status Updates: Brief, ad-hoc updates can address immediate concerns or share quick wins

Regardless of the format, the focus should be on creating a collaborative space for teams to,

Present findings and progress
Discuss challenges and roadblocks
Seek guidance and feedback
Ask for additional resources
Explore potential adjustments to the project direction

A crucial element often overlooked is the creation of psychological safety within these check-ins. Psychological safety, as defined by Amy Edmondson, refers to is “a shared belief held by members of a team that the team is safe for interpersonal risk taking.” In the context of Gen AI projects, this means creating an environment where team members feel comfortable admitting mistakes or setbacks, asking for help or clarification, and challenging assumptions or proposing alternative approaches

Without psychological safety, teams may be hesitant to share critical information, leading to delays, inefficiencies, and even project failure. Leaders can foster psychological safety by encouraging open communication and active listening, responding constructively to mistakes and setbacks, and creating a culture of respect and inclusivity.

As Gen AI becomes more integrated into various business functions, the scope of these check-ins may need to expand to include representatives from different departments. This cross-functional collaboration can facilitate knowledge sharing and prevent siloed thinking, identify opportunities for synergy and collaboration between different Gen AI initiatives, and ensure that Gen AI projects are aligned with the needs and priorities of different business units.

6 Key Principles for Effective Check-ins Addressing Gen AI Disruption

Several core principles underpin successful Gen AI project check-ins:

Collaboration over Control: The emphasis should be on collaborative problem-solving, not issuing mandates. Leadership should act as a guide and facilitator, empowering teams to take ownership of their work.
Focus on Learning and Iteration: Gen AI projects are inherently experimental. Check-ins should create a safe space for teams to discuss challenges, even setbacks, without fear of reprisal. This fosters a culture of learning and continuous improvement.
Actionable Feedback: Feedback should be constructive and actionable, focusing on specific areas for improvement, such as model refinement, data quality, or alignment with business objectives.
Strategic Alignment: Check-ins provide an opportunity to ensure that the Gen AI project remains aligned with the organization’s broader strategic goals. This includes reassessing project goals as needed and identifying opportunities for cross-team collaboration.
Celebrating Wins: Recognizing and celebrating even small wins can significantly boost team morale and motivation, especially during long-term projects.
Preventing Tunnel Vision: Check-ins can help prevent teams from becoming too narrowly focused on their specific project, encouraging cross-team knowledge sharing and alignment with broader organizational objectives.

Client Case Study: Streamlining Customer Support with Gen AI

As a consultant, I recently worked with a mid-sized regional bank (approximately 500 employees) that sought to improve its customer support efficiency using Gen AI. The bank was experiencing increasing call volumes and longer wait times, leading to customer dissatisfaction.

When I spoke to the leadership team, I cited research from McKinsey showing that customer service productivity can be improved by up to 45%, including a specific study by McKinsey on credit customer assistance. They decided to go ahead with a project, and we initiated a Gen AI project to develop a chatbot capable of handling routine customer inquiries, freeing up human agents to address more complex issues. We established bi-weekly check-ins with the project team, consisting of data scientists, software engineers, and customer service representatives.

During these check-ins, we focused on:

Progress updates: The team presented their progress on model training, data preprocessing, and chatbot integration with existing systems
Challenge identification: The team encountered initial difficulties in training the model to accurately understand and respond to complex financial terminology
Solution exploration: We discussed potential solutions, including expanding the training dataset with more specialized financial texts and fine-tuning the model’s natural language processing capabilities
Strategic alignment: We ensured that the chatbot development remained aligned with the bank’s overall customer service strategy, focusing on improving response times and enhancing customer satisfaction

After three months, the chatbot was successfully deployed, handling approximately 40% of routine customer inquiries. Here’s what happened:

Average call wait times decreased by 25%
Customer satisfaction scores related to support interactions increased by 15% based on post-interaction surveys
The support team was able to reduce staffing by 10% through natural attrition, saving $250,000 annually

This case study demonstrates the power of regular, strategically designed check-ins in guiding Gen AI projects to achieve tangible business outcomes. By fostering collaboration, providing constructive feedback, and maintaining strategic alignment, leadership can empower teams to innovate and deliver real value through Gen AI.

Long-Term Impact

Leaders should regularly assess the effectiveness of these check-ins and make adjustments as needed.

Regular check-ins are not a one-time activity; they should be an ongoing process that evolves as the Gen AI project progresses and the organization gains more experience with the technology. Leaders should regularly assess the effectiveness of these check-ins and make adjustments as needed. This continuous improvement approach will ensure that the check-ins remain a valuable tool for guiding Gen AI initiatives and maximizing their impact on the business.

By embracing the principles outlined in this article, leaders can effectively guide their Gen AI initiatives, maximizing their potential while mitigating the associated risks. The key is to view check-ins not as control mechanisms, but as opportunities for collaboration, learning, and continuous improvement, fostering a culture of innovation and driving tangible business value.

Go to top

About the Author

Dr. Gleb Tsipursky was named “Office Whisperer” by The New York Times for helping leaders overcome frustrations with Generative AI. He serves as the CEO of the future-of-work consultancy Disaster Avoidance Experts. Dr. Gleb wrote seven best-selling books, and his two most recent ones are Returning to the Office and Leading Hybrid and Remote Teams and ChatGPT for Leaders and Content Creators: Unlocking the Potential of Generative AI. His cutting-edge thought leadership was featured in over 650 articles and 550 interviews in Harvard Business Review, Inc. Magazine, USA Today, CBS News, Fox News, Time, Business Insider, Fortune, The New York Times, and elsewhere. His writing was translated into Chinese, Spanish, Russian, Polish, Korean, French, Vietnamese, German, and other languages. His expertise comes from over 20 years of consulting, coaching, and speaking and training for Fortune 500 companies from Aflac to Xerox. It also comes from over 15 years in academia as a behavioral scientist, with 8 years as a lecturer at UNC-Chapel Hill and 7 years as a professor at Ohio State. A proud Ukrainian American, Dr. Gleb lives in Columbus, Ohio.

Philippines Path to ASEAN’s Ukraine? The Move Toward a Regional Military Hub

March 30, 2026

By Dan Steinbock

In the past, PH targets comprised mainly the EDCA sites. Now they include the planned ammo manufacturing sites. Manila is moving from a US logistical enabler to a huge regional military hub, like Ukraine a few years ago.

Last week, the Pentagon disclosed that the US-led military manufacturing partnership (PIPIR) is assessing funding for a major new ammunition assembly and production line in the Philippines.

Under its ultra-conservative PM Sanae Takaichi, Japan is taking the lead to set up a new program to produce propulsion systems used in many guided weapons, while the Philippines is tasked to host ⁠a large new weapons facility. The bilateral cooperation has intensified for half a decade.

Meanwhile, defense secretary Gilberto Teodoro has been negotiating stronger defense cooperation with the NATO leaders in Europe.

Following these reports, China’s foreign ministry warned the United States against bringing “conflict and the chaos of war” to the Asia-Pacific. In Beijing’s view, a potential ammunition facility would destabilize the region.

Toward major instability

The new military tasks of the Philippines were recently promoted by the Center for a New American Security (CNAS). This US thinktank played a role in legitimizing Biden administration’s engagement in Ukraine, Israel’s Gaza “war”, and Iran mobilization.

In some ASEAN countries, the concern is that these strategic moves could pave the way to major instability and possibly a major Asian war.

From an international military standpoint, the Philippines is transforming itself to serve as a forward staging area for US forces, air and naval logistics hub, missile deployment sites, ISR (intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance), sea lane control in South China Sea, and protection of Japanese/US military supply routes.

In some ASEAN countries, the concern is that these strategic moves could pave the way to major instability and possibly a major Asian war.

The following commentary draws only from public sources and discourses on EDCA locations, logistics plans, ammo sites, and targeting doctrines seen in Ukraine, Middle East, and NATO war-gaming.

US–Japanese weapons hub

In the Philippine bases, the possible US air force deployments include F-35 and F-16 fighters, P-8 maritime patrol, KC-135 and KC-46 tankers, C-17 and C-130 transports or AWACS radar aircraft.

The most sensitive issue involves missile systems. US has discussed deploying mobile missile units in the region. Possible systems feature HIMARS, Tomahawk land-attack missiles, SM-6 multi-role missiles and Naval Strike Missile (NSM). Japan is developing Type-12 anti-ship missiles and long-range cruise missiles.

Ostensibly, US ground troops would be mostly rotational, not permanent. They could feature US Marines, Army air defense units, special forces, engineers and logistics.

With naval forces, ports in Philippines could support US destroyers, submarines and amphibious ships.

Japan is also increasingly involved in radar systems to Philippines, coast guard ships, joint exercises and possible future troop access agreements.

The risk is that the Philippines is close to its perceived adversary’s missile range, has limited air defense and many bases near civilian areas.

High-priority targets

Among the primary targets, Northern Luzon is the primary operational zone. The EDCA sites include Lal-lo Airport, which is very close to Taiwan, is seen as a possible missile/transport hub, and thus a likely target for cruise or ballistic missiles.

Camilo Osias Naval Base is located near Luzon Strait. Since it could be useful for surveillance and naval staging, it is a likely high priority target. Basa Air Base could serve for fighter, tanker and ISR staging. It is a likely missile target.

Along with Northern Luzon, Palawan serves as the South China Sea axis where monitoring sites feature Antonio Bautista Air Base, which could support anti-ship operations. In turn, Balabac Island controls the passage between South China Sea and Sulu Sea. It could be useful for anti-ship missiles.

Then comes Central Luzon’s logistics core. Fort Magsaysay, the largest training base, and Mactan-Benito Ebuen Air Base, which remain relevant for training, staging and transport.

That’s the first-order military geography.

Ukrainian-style regional arms production

With the new arrangements, the new primary targets feature the Subic–Clark corridor, due to the ammunition production/assembly planned in Subic Bay Freeport. As a part of regional military-industrial cooperation, it is framed as a regional munition hub. This upgrades Subic from a “logistics port” to a war-sustaining industrial node.

The second new development involves the large US prepositioning storage. US Navy is seeking a huge storage facility likely near Subic-Clark, featuring vehicles, equipment, maintenance, and armories.

The planned forward stockpile hub is similar to US prepositioning in Europe and the Middle East. Think of US prepositioning and war reserve stocks in Kuwait, Qatar, Israel and Diego Garcia – the ones that are now under fire.

Here’s the main difference: Philippine targets will be far more exposed than those in Europe and the Middle East. And that makes Subic Bay and Clark Freeport primary targets.

A third development may be evolving in Batanes, in the north. Having opened in 2025, the Forward Operating Base in Batanes is the closest Philippine territory to Taiwan. It is seen as ideal for radar, ISR, and potentially missile staging.

<span style="font-size: 10pt; color: #999999;"><em>The expanding list of Philippines military targets</em></span> — *The expanding list of Philippines military targets*

Living dangerously

A naval blockade or a strike in this “Golden Triangle” (Subic-Clark-Manila) could effectively trap the Philippine defense manufacturing capability in one small zone. A single incident or blockade could paralyze the capital’s supply chain.

The plan to build ammunition production and assembly facilities in the Philippines changes the targeting logic of the Taiwan-war scenarios. The country will no longer be just a staging platform.

Their demise would disrupt the heartbeat of the Philippine economy and society.

Behind the fog of the corruption debacle and the energy crisis that it is highly exposed to, the Philippines is taking a huge leap from a logistical warehouse to a regional military hub – amid its greatest economic crisis in a generation.

The devastation of the outlined Philippines targets would not be just a crushing military loss. Their demise would disrupt the heartbeat of the Philippine economy and society.

In Ukraine, Gaza, Lebanon, Iran and the Middle East at large, such arrangements have served the interests of recent US administrations.

The question is, do they really serve to protect peace and prosperity in the Philippines interest?

Go to top

About the Author

Dr. Dan Steinbock is an internationally recognized strategist of the multipolar world and the founder of Difference Group. He has served at the India, China and America Institute (USA), Shanghai Institutes for International Studies (China) and the EU Center (Singapore). For more, see https://www.differencegroup.net

Pakistan to Host U.S.-Iran Talks as Tensions Escalate

March 30, 2026

Pakistan is stepping in as a potential mediator in the ongoing U.S.-Iran conflict. Pakistani Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar said both countries have expressed confidence in Islamabad to host talks in the “coming days” aimed at ending the war.

The U.S. is meanwhile weighing a potential ground operation in Iran as thousands of troops arrive in the region. President Trump has mentioned that the conflict is slowing down but still carries the chance of getting worse. Lawmakers are wary of a full invasion, although some back sending special forces in a limited way.

Iran has intensified threats, targeting U.S. and Israeli educational institutions in the region. Meanwhile, an Iranian strike on Bahrain’s aluminum smelter has raised concerns about global supply, pushing aluminum prices higher.

Regional foreign ministers from Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Turkey met in Islamabad to discuss ways to reduce tensions. Egyptian Foreign Minister Badr Abdelatty called it a push for “direct dialogue” between Washington and Tehran, which have mostly communicated through intermediaries.

The war’s human toll continues to mount. Iranian officials report more than 1,900 deaths, Israel says 19 people have died, Lebanon counts over 1,200, and U.S. forces have recorded 13 casualties. Attacks targeting nuclear and industrial sites have damaged important infrastructure. Meanwhile, tensions continue near strategic areas such as the Strait of Hormuz, causing worries in global markets.

With Pakistan set to host talks, many are watching to see if diplomacy can help ease a crisis that is already affecting economies, energy supplies, and everyday life throughout the Middle East.

Related Readings:

Iran Rejects U.S. Ceasefire, Sets Conditions for Ending War

Trump Warns of Strikes on Iran Power Plants if Key Oil Route Stays Closed

Iran’s New Supreme Leader Says Strait of Hormuz Should Stay Closed

Go to top

Energy Market Shocks: What Banks and Investors Should Watch Next

March 29, 2026

Market stock graph and information with city light and electricity and energy facility industry and business

By Arthur Azizov

The global economy is confronting an unprecedented energy shock as the closure of the Hormuz Strait halts critical oil and gas shipments, sending prices soaring. Arthur Azizov, Founder and Investor of B2 Ventures, highlights how this disruption extends beyond energy markets: rising resource costs, inflationary pressure, financial market volatility, and banking risks are forcing policymakers and investors to navigate an exceptionally complex economic landscape.

As time goes on, it has become clear that the current crisis will have far greater significance for the global economy than it was initially thought. Markets and investors are still considering it as just another energy shock, and many continue to look at oil prices as the main outcome. Yes, oil prices are surely important, but we should look beyond that. The current environment is affecting the economy on many levels. The longer it lasts, the larger the impact will be.

Why Hormuz Matters More Than Ever

Undoubtedly, the main factor in this conflict is the closure of the Hormuz Strait. Typically, 20 million barrels of oil per day used to pass through it, along with 3-4 trillion cubic feet of liquified gas, accounting for roughly a quarter of global consumption.

Never before (even during the War between Iraq and Iran in the 1980s) has shipping through Hormuz been fully halted. That is what makes the current crisis exceptional. Think tanks and governments modelled scenarios involving a potential closure of the strait, but it was largely considered an ephemeral risk. Very few expected that such a critical artery would actually be cut off.

The shipping disruption has led to a sharp increase in oil and gas prices, and there are almost no signs that the situation will resolve quickly. The key problem with Hormuz lies in the lack of alternatives. Global oil and gas markets are highly segmented, and buyers are often tied to specific suppliers. Replacing oil from the Gulf region is extremely difficult, even though some flexibility exists.

The situation is far worse for buyers of liquefied gas from Qatar. The LNG market is much more dependent on specific supply chains, and it is extremely difficult for other players to increase production. Now, many Asian countries, which bought the LNG from Qatar, have gas reserves sufficient for only a few days or weeks. Once those are depleted, they might face a serious energy crisis.

The Shock Spreads Across Energy Markets

All of this has already pushed oil and gas prices up by 50%. Yet, it is important to look beyond energy markets, as was mentioned earlier. The halt of shipping through Hormuz affected other resources, and prices for aluminium, helium, and chemical fertilizers rose significantly. The rise in energy and input costs is putting pressure on the businesses. Many companies will either have to accept lower margins or cut production. The impact on several resource bases is what marks the current crisis from previous shocks.

It is only a question of time before these prices will affect the global economy. When the conflict began, many were concerned about inflation. Higher oil and gas prices translate into more expensive fuel and electricity, which, in turn, raise the general prices. Add to this the increase in production costs driven by higher prices for other inputs, and the result is a significant boost to inflation. Based on an economic rule of thumb, a 50% increase in energy prices can add up to 1% to inflation in developed economies. This is a noticeable increase because inflation remains above the central banks’ targets.

What Lies Beneath Oil and Inflation

Yet, inflation is only the first layer of this crisis. Central banks around the world will have to lean toward tighter monetary policy to contain rising prices. Over the last year, regulators in developed economies cut rates, but now that cycle may reverse. Higher interest rates will make borrowing more expensive for both consumers and businesses. Households will postpone large purchases, resulting in a loss of revenue for companies.

At the same time, the crisis is likely to increase volatility in financial markets. Investors have already moved a share of their assets into cash at the fastest pace since the pandemic. Normally, large investors avoid holding too much cash because it doesn’t generate profit. A rise in cash allocations almost always signals a desire to preserve capital and a concern about the market.

At a certain point, this dynamic can become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Selling assets pushes their prices down, which makes investors shift more funds into cash. Although markets remained relatively stable and the S&P 500 traded in a narrow 1-2% range, portfolio reallocations suggest reconsidering risk.

These market conditions also increase pressure on banks, especially in regions depending on energy flows. Estimates suggest Gulf banks could face $300 billion in deposit outflows, along with rising credit risks. In response, banks worldwide may tighten lending standards, leading to a decrease in consumer activity. This will put additional pressure on business revenues.

Is There Anything Central Banks Can Do?

All this makes it extremely hard for central banks to make the decision. Rising inflationary pressure needs a tighter monetary policy. Yet, this time the price increase came from the supply side. Manipulating interest rates could be insufficient to contain inflation. At the same time, such a policy will undermine economic growth and corporate profits. As a result, policymakers will have to balance between supporting growth and taming inflation. In practice, however, central banks tend to fight inflation, since there is not so much benefit from rising incomes if all prices in the economy also rise.

Go to top

About the Author

Arthur Azizov is a fintech entrepreneur and investor with more than 15 years of experience in financial markets. He is the founder of B2 Ventures, a fintech group focused on financial infrastructure and digital banking. His work focuses on developing technology-driven services for institutional clients.

FP Trading Enhances Trading Experience with AI Technology and Trading Central Integration

March 28, 2026

FP Trading today announced the expansion of its trading ecosystem through the integration of FP Trading AI and Trading Central, alongside continued investment in its institutional trading infrastructure and execution environment.

The combined offering is designed to provide traders with deeper market insights, advanced analytics, and a more efficient trading experience across global financial markets.

Smarter Trading Through AI and Market Intelligence

FP Trading AI introduces artificial intelligence-driven analytics that help traders better understand market behavior and trading performance. The system analyzes data, identifies patterns, and delivers insights designed to support more informed decision-making.

In addition, FP Trading has integrated Trading Central, a globally recognized provider of market research and technical analysis. This allows traders to access professional market insights, technical forecasts, and structured trading signals directly within the FP Trading ecosystem.

Together, these tools provide a dual layer of intelligence combining AI-driven analytics and expert market research.

Built on Institutional Infrastructure

FP Trading’s technology ecosystem is supported by institutional-grade trading infrastructure designed for speed, stability, and reliability.

The trading environment includes advanced trading platforms such as MetaTrader 4, MetaTrader 5, and cTrader, supported by high-performance servers and deep liquidity access. This infrastructure ensures consistent market access and efficient trade execution across global markets.

Fast and Reliable Execution

Execution quality remains a core focus of FP Trading’s offering.

The brokerage provides ultra-fast execution, deep multi-bank liquidity, and a no-dealing-desk model, allowing traders to execute strategies efficiently in different market conditions.

This combination of strong infrastructure and advanced technology enables FP Trading to deliver a competitive and reliable trading environment for both retail and professional traders.

About FP Trading

FP Trading is a global forex and CFD brokerage providing access to a wide range of financial markets including forex, commodities, indices, and cryptocurrencies.

The company operates under multiple jurisdictions including:

FSRA — Saint Lucia
FSA — Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
FSCA — South Africa
FSC — Mauritius

Through continuous investment in technology, infrastructure, and client-focused solutions, FP Trading continues to strengthen its global trading ecosystem.

Go to top

Building a Greener Ireland: How Frylite’s 35 Years of Used Cooking Oil Recycling Supports

March 27, 2026

Imagine a bustling Dublin restaurant kitchen on a Friday night. The deep-fryer sizzles, golden chips fly onto plates, and the air fills with the irresistible scent of perfectly fried food. But behind the scenes, something even more remarkable is happening: every drop of that used cooking oil isn’t heading to a landfill or down the drain. Instead, it’s being transformed into renewable biodiesel that powers cars, buses, and even Frylite’s own delivery fleet. This isn’t science fiction—it’s the everyday reality created by Frylite Solutions, Ireland’s leading cooking oil supplier and recycler. For over 35 years, Frylite has turned what many see as waste into a powerful driver of the circular economy, helping build a greener, more sustainable Ireland.

Founded in 1988 by visionary entrepreneur Eamon McCay with just one truck and a big idea, Frylite began as a family operation determined to professionalise the cooking oil industry. What started as a simple supply service quickly evolved into a complete ecosystem of sustainability. Today, the company serves more than 8,500 food businesses across Ireland and Northern Ireland—from cosy local cafés to multinational chains—supplying around 32.5 million litres of premium fresh cooking oil annually while collecting approximately 22 million litres of used cooking oil (UCO) for recycling. With a fleet of 50 specialist vehicles and processing facilities in Strabane, Co. Tyrone, Frylite has become a cornerstone of Ireland’s green transition.

At the heart of Frylite’s success is its brilliantly simple “supply-and-collect” model. When a delivery driver drops off fresh oil, the same truck immediately sucks up the used oil from specially provided wheelie bins—no extra cost, no extra trips, and no hassle for busy kitchen staff. Free equipment, automatic monthly compliance reports, full insurance against regulatory fines, and HACCP documentation come as standard. This seamless integration isn’t just convenient; it’s revolutionary for reducing emissions. Fewer lorries on the road mean fewer carbon emissions right from the start. As one Frylite campaign neatly puts it, the same vehicle that delivers your fresh oil collects the old—turning logistics into a sustainability win.

Once collected, the real magic of the circular economy begins. The used oil travels to Frylite’s dedicated facility in Strabane, where it is de-packed, heated, cleaned, and filtered to the highest standards. Approximately 85% of the collected UCO is then converted into biodiesel through transesterification—one kilogram of processed UCO yields about 0.97 kilograms of biodiesel. This renewable fuel ends up at service stations across Ireland and beyond, powering vehicles with a much lower carbon footprint than traditional diesel. In 2023 alone, Frylite’s UCO and food waste recycling initiatives saved over 47,265 tonnes of CO₂. To put that in perspective, it’s the equivalent of taking thousands of cars off the road or preventing the emissions of hundreds of thousands of flights between Dublin and Paris.

This process perfectly embodies the principles of the circular economy: designing out waste and pollution, keeping products and materials in use, and regenerating natural systems. In a linear “take-make-dispose” model, used cooking oil would clog drains, pollute waterways, or rot in landfills, releasing methane and harming the environment. Frylite flips the script. Instead of disposal, there’s recovery; instead of pollution, there’s renewable energy; instead of waste, there’s value. By closing the loop—from farm or refinery to kitchen fryer and back to biofuel—Frylite demonstrates how everyday business operations can support Ireland’s ambitious Circular Economy Act 2022 and EU sustainability targets.

The environmental wins are matched by powerful economic and operational benefits for Irish businesses. Restaurants, hotels, and food manufacturers save time and money—no need to source separate waste collectors or worry about illegal dumping fines. Frylite’s local teams provide reliable, scheduled collections (weekly, fortnightly, or as needed), and the company’s commitment to reusing collection containers minimises plastic waste further. Customers receive peace of mind through transparent reporting that helps them meet regulatory requirements effortlessly. As one satisfied operator noted in Frylite’s materials, “All we have to worry about is making great burgers!” Meanwhile, Frylite itself walks the talk: its fleet is increasingly fuelled by the very biodiesel produced from collected UCO, creating an internal circular loop that inspires the entire industry.

Beyond the numbers, Frylite’s 35-year journey reflects Ireland’s broader green awakening. The hospitality sector generates significant used cooking oil, and proper management is critical to hitting national climate goals. If every drop of UCO across Ireland were recycled like Frylite’s, the CO₂ savings would be staggering—equivalent to removing 40,000 cars from the roads. Frylite doesn’t stop at oil: its expanding food waste collection service diverts plate scrapings and packaged waste into biogas and biofertiliser, further strengthening the circular model and reducing reliance on chemical fertilisers and fossil fuels.

Looking ahead, Frylite’s story is far from finished. With decades of expertise, a nationwide network of depots, and an unwavering focus on innovation, the company continues to set industry standards for safety, efficiency, and sustainability. Partnerships with biofuel producers and initiatives like powering its own fleet with recycled oil show a forward-thinking approach that aligns perfectly with Ireland’s vision of a climate-neutral future.

In an era when climate action can feel overwhelming, Frylite reminds us that real change often starts with the simplest actions—like recycling the oil from last night’s fish and chips. By turning used cooking oil into clean energy, Frylite isn’t just running a business; it’s helping build a greener Ireland, one fryer at a time. For food businesses ready to join the circular revolution, the message is clear: when Frylite delivers fresh oil, sustainability is already on the menu.

Go to top

Iran Rejects U.S. Ceasefire, Sets Conditions for Ending War

March 26, 2026

Iran has made it clear that it will not engage in direct talks with the United States, even as American officials have proposed a plan to end the ongoing conflict. According to Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, the U.S. proposal is being reviewed, but any exchange of messages does not constitute formal negotiations.

State media reports that Iran has laid out a five-point counteroffer, including full control over the Strait of Hormuz, a halt to enemy aggression, guaranteed reparations, and the conclusion of the war across all fronts and resistance groups. Tehran says recognition of its sovereignty over the Strait is essential to ensure compliance with the other commitments.

The conflict started on February 28 after U.S. and Israeli strikes on Iran, and since then, tensions in the region have grown while global energy supplies and shipping routes have been affected. President Donald Trump has shown a desire to reach an agreement, proposing joint control over the Strait of Hormuz as part of the talks, but Iran’s demands still seem far from any middle ground.

U.S. keeps trying to push for a ceasefire and to start indirect talks, but Iranian leaders say they won’t seriously consider a settlement until they achieve their main objectives in the conflict.

Related Readings:

Power Plants at Risk

Trump Warns of Strikes on Iran Power Plants if Key Oil Route Stays Closed

Iran’s Supreme Leader Calls to Keep Strait of Hormuz Closed

Iran’s New Supreme Leader Says Strait of Hormuz Should Stay Closed

Iran flag in background

Iran Protests Turn Deadly As Witnesses Describe Widespread Violence In Tehran

Go to top

AI Agents Fail 96% of the Time, But Enterprise AI Workflows Change That

March 26, 2026

A new study recently came out pitting AI Agents against real workers, with the goal of finding out which would come ahead – and it wasn’t even close.

The takeaway was that AI Agents fail 96% of the time in comparison to humans on real jobs. This is leaving many wondering if it fails the vast majority of practical, economically valuable work, then is enterprise AI integration viable at this time?

The intent of this study is a step in the right direction toward gaining a better understanding of AI agents’ real effect in the workplace. As a measure of raw, end-to-end AI autonomy, it’s one of the most rigorous efforts we’ve seen.

But that conclusion rests on the assumption that the benchmark reflects how AI is actually deployed inside enterprises.

It doesn’t.

What the study measures is autonomous AI agents given a brief and files and asked to complete a project largely on their own. What enterprises deploy, by contrast, are engineered systems – structured workflows with orchestration, validation layers, specialized tool integrations, and human oversight. The distinction matters. And it changes the implications of that 96% headline entirely.

What the Study Actually Tested

To understand how they came to the 96% figure, we need to be clear about how the benchmark is being determined. The Remote Labor Index study utilized 240 real freelance projects, spanning 23 separate categories of work from online marketplaces like fiverr.

Included in these were projects like game development, 3D product rendering, data visualization, branding, audio production, architectural planning and more. Each project came with an original brief, input files and a gold-standard human deliverable created by a professional familiar with completing them in real market contexts.

These jobs were not easy. On average, human freelancers spent hours completing them, and many required working across dozens of files in different formats such as images, spreadsheets, 3D models, code, video, audio, etc. The evaluation process was manual, with human reviewers comparing the AI agent’s output directly against the human-produced work and asking a simple question – would a reasonable client accept this?

The 96% failure rate refers to the percentage of projects where the AI agents did not produce a deliverable that matched or exceeded the human baseline. In many cases, the shortcomings were practical, like incomplete, corrupted, or missing files. Sometimes instructions in the brief were only partially followed or there was a lack of alignment between different aspects of the project. In other cases, the output was decent but lacked professional polish, things like visual consistency, layout, spatial accuracy, or just overall presentation.

As a test of raw, end-to-end AI autonomy on economically grounded work, the study is both ambitious and unusually practical. But it evaluates AI agents operating largely on their own and that detail becomes critical when we start considering enterprise deployments.

Why Enterprise AI Workflow Automations Operate Differently

The study’s benchmark assumes a simple model. An AI agent is given a brief and supporting files and is expected to complete the project independently from start to finish. That setup resembles the role of a solo freelancer. It‘s a good way to test autonomy, but it doesn’t reflect how AI should be deployed inside most organizations.

Enterprise AI workflow automations are designed to mitigate the kinds of issues the agents in the study struggled with. Validation loops can catch corrupted or malformed files before they move forward. Schema enforcement reduces inconsistencies across documents and assets. Templates and predefined structures constrain design variability and keep outputs aligned to standards. Tool-based checks verify technical requirements and quality assurance layers, whether automated or human, add another filter before anything reaches a client or downstream team.

In this context, enterprise AI agents are not autonomous freelancers operating on their own. They are structured systems built around operational hierarchies, where tasks are broken down into smaller steps and strictly validated along the way.

When they are designed by a team that understands the enterprise’s needs and how to fulfill them, the success of enterprise deployments changes dramatically.

One large healthcare revenue cycle management company provides a clear example of this approach. Processing hundreds of millions of transactions each year, it embedded AI directly into its billing and claims workflows. The system extracts relevant information from medical records and insurance documents, which human staff then review and act on. By integrating AI into a structured process rather than deploying it independently, the company has automated over 100 million transactions, reduced documentation time by 40%, cut turnaround times in half, achieved 99.5% accuracy, and saved more than 15,000 employee hours per month.

To be clear, engineering does not make a model infinitely capable, we can’t expect AI to do everything. But we can ensure that enterprise AI agents carry out workflows that have real, impactful economic and operational utility for whatever organization they are embedded in and that is the real future of AI in the workplace.

The Shift From Agents to Infrastructure

The most important takeaway from the 96% figure isn’t that AI is failing but that autonomy is the wrong frame for effective enterprise transformation.

Realistic and practical AI adoption will not be replacing humans outright, instead it will look like intelligence being woven into operational systems. Instead of asking whether an out of the box AI can own the entire job, enterprises must ask which of their end-to-end workflows can be automated, validated, accelerated, or standardized.

That shift has implications for which companies will own the competitive advantage, simply having the newest model with the most impressive abstract benchmarks will not be enough. Instead it will belong to organizations that understand how to integrate models into structured environments, define guardrails, and design systems that compound reliability gains into measurable economic impact.

Autonomous agents may make headlines, but engineered intelligence is what’s defining how real work gets done.

Go to top

How Will the US Military Invade Iran?

March 26, 2026

By Dr. Jack Rasmus

This past weekend, Trump threatened to escalate the War with Iran by destroying that country’s energy infrastructure starting, as he said, “with the big one”. The ‘big one’ was no doubt a veiled reference to Iran’s civilian nuclear plants.

Iran’s Natanz nuclear plant had been hit with a US missile a few days earlier as a warning. As he announced his plan to destroy all of Iran’s civilian nuclear infrastructure, Trump further declared Iran had 48 hours to capitulate before the US attack. The price of oil jumped and stock market futures began to fall within 24 hours of Trump’s threat.

Before the 48 hours were up, on Monday morning, March 23, an hour before the US stock markets opened, Trump announced Iran had approached him and asked for negotiations. Therefore he, Trump, was now suspending the attack on Iran for five more days, i.e. to the end of the current week.

The five day extension had nothing to do with negotiations, which Iran announced had never taken place. Trump made it up. The five day extension was yet another move by Trump administration officials to stabilize the US stock markets and the price of oil, both of which were set to spike. Within hours of announcing his five day suspension on Monday, US oil prices (WTI) fell $10 a barrel to $90 and stock markets opened higher after a string of declines last week.

Since the war began on February 28, Trump and various administration officials have repeatedly said publicly that negotiations were occurring, were showing progress, or even that the war was about to ‘end soon’, as Trump himself declared.

The pattern shows such false statements were, and remain, mostly about keeping financial markets from falling too fast and to prevent oil prices from rising too fast.

But there’s another explanation for Trump’s about face and his five day suspension of the US attack on Iran’s nuclear energy infrastructure.

That’s Trump’s buying time to get US military forces into the region in order to launch a ground assault into Iran, to coincide with his plan to bomb Iran’s nuclear and civilian energy infrastructure.

Here’s some facts why the five day suspension is really about buying time for much larger US military preparation.

The mainstream US media keeps reporting that a contingent of about 2,000 US marines are en route by sea on the US landing ship, US Tripoli, coming from Asia to the Persian Gulf. If we are to believe the media, the US intends to invade Iran with just a couple battalions of Marines.

Trump’s buying time to get US military forces into the region in order to launch a ground assault into Iran, to coincide with his plan to bomb Iran’s nuclear and civilian energy infrastructure.

The Marines plan to land in the Strait of Hormuz area. The US will somehow seize the strait and allow oil tankers to sail through it again. The media’s is also promoting the view that a second possible landing target is Iran’s Kharg Island, where 90% of Iran’s crude oil is refined and shipped. Kharg is close to the coast of Iran, well into the Persian Gulf’s upper end and closer to Kuwait than to the Hormuz strait. The media refers to Trump’s own social media posts where he mentions Kharg Island as a good target for the Marines. Israel’s number one mouthpiece in the US Senate, Lindsey Graham, gives daily press conferences during which he refers to taking Kharg Island as well.

But it’s all a deception.

In fact, the entire 2000 Marines on the US Tripoli may be a deception.

That raises the question: Is the US actually planning an invasion of Iran; and if so where if not Kharg Island or Hormuz?

Sending 2000 Marines to seize territory around Hormuz or Kharg Island is militarily a stupendous strategic blunder in waiting should it be undertaken. It’s hard to imagine any senior US military advisor recommending that.

First, how would 2000 Marines get through the Hormuz strait and sail up the Persian Gulf to assault Kharg Island? They would be sitting ducks all the way, presuming they could even get through the strait. Furthermore, could a mere 2000 hold Kharg if they were even able to land and seize it? Marine battalions don’t carry radars and anti-missile batteries in their inventories. They would be massively attacked by missiles and extremely difficult to re-supply.

The same applies to the other islands in the Hormuz strait, like Bander Abbas. It takes only one Iranian missile to end the Tripoli and all its 2000 on board.

The fact that US officials, according to Trump and the media, publicly mention Kharg Island and the Hormuz strait as landing targets should be an indicator there’s no intention of occupying Kharg or other Islands in the strait. The US does not discuss in public its military objectives. Therefore they are almost certainly not the targets!

There’s growing evidence, however, that when the US invasion comes—and it is coming—the landing is likely to occur elsewhere the media or Trump is not mentioning. There’s currently a massive US military build up underway, blacked out by the media, involving more than just a Marine battalion. There’s a traditional US military forces mobilization being sent to the region, more like the build up that occurred in early 2003 before the Iraq war.

Two US Airborne divisions, the 82nd and the 101st, have been activated and are reportedly en route to the region. So too are two US Army Ranger battalions. Another US Marine brigade has left the US for the region but will take weeks to arrive. It will likely relieve the first Marine force arriving on Friday. That’s a combined military force of 20,000.

And it’s been reported by some former US military officers that they’ve been informed two traditional US Army divisions are being prepared to go as well. That’s another 50,000. Saudi Arabia and UAE have indicated they will join the coalition for an assault. That’s now a total force of more than 75,000 ground troops! No way they are going to land on Kharg or some other island in the strait.

The US media briefly indicated last week that US forces are leaving the big US base in Baghdad, Iraq and redeploying to northern Iraq’s Kurd region, which borders on northwest Iran. The US air force is redeploying air assets to Turkey’s big Incirlik NATO air base, a mere 40 minute flight from northwest Iran.

When the Iran war first began in late February, there was much talk about the Kurdish forces in northeast Iraq entering Iran. Azerbaijan was also indicated. It is well known Azerbaijan is closely allied with Israel’s Mossad. It was a flight back after visiting Azerbaijan some months ago that the former president of Iran was mysteriously killed as both his helicopters were blown up in the air.

In Iran’s northwest there are large populations of Kurds and Azeris. But after a short reporting by the media on the possibility of getting the Kurds to invade early in the war, all the talk about an invasion by these US-Israel ‘allies’ from the northwest went silent in the media.

The northeast Kurdish region is also where US based military formations formerly in Baghdad until last week are relocating. Is this perhaps where the two US airborne divisions and two Ranger battalions might be sent—i.e. instead of Kharg Island or Hormuz? Is a general ground invasion into Iran from planned from the northwest?

Possibly. Perhaps even likely. Why? Because it is geographically not very far from Teheran, the capital of Iran.

From Kurdish Mosul in northeast Iraq, and from Astara in Azerbaijan’s southernmost tip next to Iran, it is less than 200 miles to Teheran in both cases. The Kurds and Azeris might seize and hold much of the northwest region of Iran where sizable ethnic populations of Kurds and Azeris live. The combined forces of Kurds, Azeris, US Rangers, US airborne could together invade. The two full US Army divisions then might land in Incirlik or Mosul in Kurdish Iraq and cross into Iran to provide heavy armor follow up support for the invasion.

Israel will not likely take part in the coalition invasion. It is too busy invading its near neighbors: Lebanon, Syria, Palestine (west bank), and GAZA.

This is not to say for certain that Northwest region of Iran and Teheran is the actual target for a US invasion. But it makes more sense militarily than sending insufficient US Marine battalions on ships into the Hormuz strait or deep into the Persian Gulf to Kharg Island. Or using US Ranger and Airborne divisions to land either in Hormuz or Kharg. And certainly not to mobilize two full armored Army divisions.

Israel will not likely take part in the coalition invasion. It is too busy invading its near neighbors.

Trump’s war objective is to destroy the current government in Iran. The US objective has always been regime change. He does not want a negotiated compromise. His talk about negotiations is therefore a deception and a lie believed by only the most naïve or who get their information from the mainstream US media. For Trump and the US empire, negotiations are just a tactic and prelude to military action. The Iranians learned that twice, once last June 2025 and on February 27, 2025. So did the Venezuelans. So have the Russians in 2015, 2022, and, I would argue, since last August at Anchorage, Alaska.

So far the Trump goal of regime change in Iran has failed: The CIA engineered popular uprising this past January-February was ill-timed, launched too early, and put down by Iran completely. Nor has limited military action by the US and Israel thus far—i.e. naval blockade, bombings, decapitation strikes, etc. Trump has therefore decided on more massive, direct military invasion.

All indications are Trump has decided to roll the military invasion dice to try to bring the war to a conclusion sooner rather than later. He can’t afford to wait until summer. The deteriorating US and global economy won’t allow it. Nor voters in the coming November elections.

The longer Iran can continue its missile war, the greater the threat to the US and western economies. It doesn’t need to ‘win’. Just not to lose for another three months. The economic impact will take its toll by then. Trump can try to talk down the markets and spot oil prices in order to obfuscate the economic impact of the war for a relatively short time further. But he knows he must escalate, beyond traditional regime change CIA methods and/or limited military action, to a direct military ground war. Or as they say, “boots on the ground.” And it looks increasingly like that’s his plan sometime next weekend, or soon after.

Perhaps he should remember how ‘boots on the ground’ turned out the last time the US resorted to invasion and direct military action in 2001-03 in Afghanistan and Iraq! Someone should remind him the estimated $9 trillion dollars that it cost the US taxpayer, its effect on the US economy and the paltry results produced.

Perhaps he should keep in mind US defense expenditures in 2001 were only $396 billion, US GDP that year 4.1%, and the national debt $5.6 trillion costing $350 billion a year in interest payments?

And that a US land invasion war is happening on a US defense spending of $1.1 trillion (plus another $200 billion requested by Defense Secretary Hegseth and a further $400 billion by Trump himself), a US GDP of only 0.7% last quarter, and a national debt exceeding $39 trillion and costing $1.2 trillion in interest payments! The US Empire can no longer afford costly direct military conflicts and invasions. Those days are over.

Wars are always very expensive affairs. And land invasion wars are especially expensive. The US empire could not afford its last land invasions in 2001-03 that cost $9 trillion. Today it is in a far worse condition economically to afford yet another direct military land invasion in Iran.

The US economy has already entered early stages of recession in 2026. The only forces holding it up from a deeper contraction are Net Exports (mostly falling imports due to tariffs) and an AI investment bubble that cannot continue. Employment is now contracting and Inflation is beginning to surge along multiple fronts. Stagflation is now rearing its ugly head.

But Trump thinks it will all be over quick, as his neocon advisors and Zionist campaign contributors and lobbyist have no doubt assured him. And if it isn’t quick? Well, there’s always his plan to try to overturn the upcoming November elections to save himself.

So Buckle up! It’s 2003 déjà vu. But this time the economic—and political—consequences will prove far more disruptive and difficult to manage.

Go to top

About the Author

Dr. Jack Rasmus is author of the recently published book, ‘The Scourge of Neoliberalism: US Economic Policy from Reagan to Trump’, Clarity Press, 2020. He publishes at Predicting the Global Economic Crisis.

1...161718...1,125 Page 17 of 1,125

FOLLOW US!

EDITOR'S PICK OF THE WEEK

CFO's new mandate. CFO explaining the presentation

The Performance and Transformation Orchestrator: The CFO’s New Mandate in the Age of AI

Anglea 0

By Terence Tse CFOs are evolving into AI-driven transformation orchestrators, balancing finance, technology, and strategy while upskilling teams, managing risks, and driving measurable business value. A key insight from this year’s AI for CFOs event, organized...