Wednesday, May 20, 2026

"Operation Epic Folly" - With Real (Not Imaginary) Shortages - May Soon Become Reality - According To The Financial Times

 


The Financial Times, for me, is now the more realistic publication regarding the reality we inhabit than The Wall Street Journal - which still protects Trump too much from sober criticism based on what he has done to the global economy.  As Martin Wolf notes in his FT column yesterday ("The Gulf Crisis May Be Just Starting'):

"First came the war. Then came the blockade. Now come the shortages. The tankers full of essential commodities: oil, liquid natural gas, urea, refined oil products, hydrogen, helium - have not sailed through the Strait of Hormuz since the end of February.... As inventories are drawn down we will move into the era of real physical shortages."

Based on the data, especially the graph above, Faith Birol, Director of the International Energy Agency, has warned we are entering the biggest energy crisis in history.   As Mr. Wolf observed:

"The U.S. called its war 'Operation Epic Fury' but 'Operation Epic Folly' would be a more realistic name."

This is given that any half-brained numbnut ought to have readily seen the grave consequences of mounting a half-assed attack on Iran (which many in the WSJ's deluded op-ed stable still believe can be won).  Why? Because these nattering nabobs for the unreal continue to believe the words of a senile, demented windbag, who can't even marshal a consistent message or explanation.  His latest toddler yap is to keep repeating in a mindless loop: "Only thing that matters when I talk about Iran, they can't have nuclear weapons

As if Iran will just comply. Or cower from his threats - even lately of using nukes. As Mr. Wolf put it:

"Will Iran agree to that even in principle? Why would it trust Trump to keep his side of any deal?  Why would Iran, having imposed control of shipping in the Gulf, surrender it?"

But Dotard is too stupid to ask those questions because the deranged imp believes he holds all the cards, when he holds none. He lost them the second he initiated his attack three months ago believing it would be a cakewalk like Venezuela and snatching Maduro.

E.g. 

TRUMP SHOOTS HIMSELF IN THE D*CK | The Kyle Kulinski Show

 CHAOS ERUPTS As Trump THREATENS NUKES & BOMBS NIGERIA; US DRONE SHOT DOWN; POWER PLANT ATTACKED!!

But you won't get any of the serious lowdown from the Journal.  Mr. Wolf's point, which seems to elude the Journal's contributors, is that the whole world (and the U.S.) is now up against the wall with serious shortages thanks to Trump's dithering instead of making a deal NOW. In Wolf's words:

"Up to now the shortages have been imaginary. Now they will become real. They must be managed, ultimate by suppressing demand. The latter in turn will require some combination of rationing and recession."

Yes, you saw those 'R' words correctly.  And for those of us alive during the oil crisis of the 70s we immediately recall the endless lines at gas stations as the rationing went into effect. Often stations closing while drivers were still lined up to get to the pump. Yes, folks, this is around the corner unless Trump and his minions wake up and realize they are getting no better deals than Iran has already offered. Basically akin to what they had from Obama back in 2014. (But which Trump tore up.)

Can't happen in the U.S. because we are self-sufficient in oil? Don't make that bet.  As Mr. Wolf goes on:

"The loss of exports of specific crudes and refined exports (e.g. diesel, jet fuel, naphta ,LPG, gasoline) means that no  simple substitutions are possible.  Given these product -specific realities, the U.S. is not self-sufficient in oil. Yes, it is a net exporter, but it is also a large importer - since its refineries must have access to the crudes they can process."

But what if they cannot get those crudes?  Then there can be no processing and refineries shut down. When that occurs look for gasoline shortages at the pump - like in the 70s- which may be only months away unless Trump comes out of his dementia stupor.

The point? There is a big difference between having to pay $5 a gallon at the pump and the pump not having any gasoline, or very little - because of actual rationing.

  See Also: 

 Is A 'Wave of Pain' Headed Our Way From the Ongoing Strait of Hormuz Blockage?

   And:  

    How Iran Gained Leverage in the War - The New York Times

   Excerpt:

  Nearly three months into the conflict, the Iranian regime has succeeded in confounding U.S. and Israeli expectations for a speedy victory.

The regime survived a wave of targeted killings early in the war. It then managed to turn the tables on its more powerful adversaries, introducing something of a stalemate.

Since mid-March, Iran has maintained control over the Strait of Hormuz, an international waterway crucial to the world’s oil and gas trade. It has been able to limit U.S. and Israeli attacks on it

To gain an edge over its much more powerful adversary, Iran used a method that game-theory scholars call “triangular coercion,” said Dan Sobelman, a professor at Hebrew University in Jerusalem who studies Iranian deterrence strategies.

The strategy works by attacking a more vulnerable third party that has some leverage over an adversary to gain advantage over an opponent that cannot be outmatched directly.

In this case, the third parties were primarily the Gulf states, which are both militarily vulnerable and economically important to the United States. Iran’s attacks against them early in the war, combined with its ability to effectively close the strait, have for now successfully thwarted a decisive victory for the United States and Israel.

It is a strategy that could have long-term implications not only for the outcome of the current conflict and Iran’s role in the Middle East, but also for the limits of U.S. power elsewhere.s energy industry. It even got President Trump to rein in Israel’s war in Lebanon against Hezbollah, an Iranian-backed militia.

“Iran definitely has the advantage here,” said Nicole Grajewski, who teaches at the Center for International Studies at Sciences Po in France and studies Iran’s foreign policy. “The U.S. is just kind of flailing at the moment.”

  And:

by Seth Sandronsky | May 19, 2026 - 4:46am | permalink

`

Inflation, a general rise in prices, increased in April due to higher costs for energy primarily, at 40%; food; and shelter.

“The Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) increased 0.6% on a seasonally adjusted basis in April, after rising 0.9% in March, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported. Over the last 12 months, the all items index increased 3.8 percent before seasonal adjustment.”

Energy prices are up in no small way due to the unprovoked US-Israel war against Iran begun on February 28, 2026. That violation of international law has caused 3,468 deaths and over 26,500 injuries in Iran, according to Iranian authorities, and closed the Strait of Hormuz.

An estimated 20% of the world’s petroleum passes through this route, which was open for business before the war began. Moreover, that closure is evidence of a US defeat, writes Robert Kagan, a leading neoconservative and Iraq War hawk who co-founded the Project for the New American Century, in The Atlantic magazine recently.

» article continues...

And:

    The Last Warning Before America's Iran War Collapses the Global Oil Market - Prof. Jiang Xueqin

  And:

 The 2026 Energy Crisis and Our Wile E. Coyote Moment

by Richard Heinberg | May 4, 2026 - 4:37am | permalink

`

Pop culture has long memorialized the Warner Brothers cartoon gag in which Wile E. Coyote, lured by his nemesis the Roadrunner, races off a cliff. Instead of immediately falling, Coyote keeps running, then looks down and realizes there’s nothing beneath him but empty space. His expression turns from anger to panic, whereupon he plummets. Coyote’s belated moment of realization is a trendy metaphor for our response to inevitable, though not yet fully realized, consequences of foolish behavior.

For the past couple of decades, we at Post Carbon Institute have been pointing out that energy is the basis of the economy, that oil is our foremost energy source, and that a transition to alternative energy sources will necessarily be slow and incomplete. Given that oil is a depleting, polluting, non-renewable resource, industrial society is due for a reckoning at some point. We are all in an extended Wile E. Coyote moment.

» article continues...

And:

   We Have Just Entered the Most Dangerous Period in 100 Years — And Most People Have No Idea | Jiang

  And:

  IT’S GETTING REALLY REALLY BAD | The Kyle Kulinski Show

Tuesday, May 19, 2026

NC Religion Prof Joins The List Of UFO Ignoramuses With Her WaPo Piece

 

        J. Allen Hynek - Scientific Definition of UFO

                       Basis for physical reality of UFOs-UAP


Diana Walsh Pasulka - a professor of religion at the University of North Carolina at Wilmington, has now joined the ‘illustrious’ ranks of know-nothing profs, “scientists”, and media nabobs who believe UFOs arise from "belief" and constitute the basis for a “new religion” or entry into another rabbit hole of the mind. As she writes in her Friday WaPo piece:

On May 8, Pentagon officials began releasing previously classified material related to unidentified flying objects. The UFO files may not prove the existence of extraterrestrial life. But their publication is nonetheless a significant event. By creating a government-sanctioned repository of content that can be consulted for the truth about unknown intelligence, the U.S. government has offered support and recognition to a new kind of religion: belief in UFOs."

This initial blabber marks the prof's first indication of being woefully ignorant of the phenomenon itself, as well as its historical scientific basis.  First, there is NO such thing as "belief in UFOs".  Or to quote Dr. Kenneth L. Franklin (Neil deGrasse Tyson's predecessor at the Hayden Planetarium) from a Barbados lecture he gave in 1975:

"Asking me if I believe in UFOs is like asking me if I believe in Chicago. Of course I do! What you're really asking me when you ask that question is whether I believe UFOs are spacecraft from another planet, and I don't."

Second, she is blissfully unaware that the full scientific definition of the UFO has already been given, by the late Prof. J. Allen Hynek (former Chair of Astronomy Dept. Northwestern University) in his book UFOs- A Scientific Inquiry:

"A UFO is the reported perception of an object of light seen in the sky, the appearance, trajectory and general dynamic behavior of which do not suggest a logical, conventional explanation and which is not only mystifying to the original percipients but remains unidentified, after close scrutiny of all available evidence by persons who are technically capable of making a common sense identification, if one   were possible.”

The definition fulfills all the key criteria of an objective, operational definition, not corrupted by bias or personal assumptions - particularly by way of "beliefs".   Hynek basically  gives us a scientific template by which to judge the nature of an object or light seen in the sky and which falls outside recognized categories.   

This brings us to my one and only UFO observation 64 years ago, the detailed account of which I presented in the letter section ('Brainwaves') of The Mensa Bulletin five years ago and which I reproduce below:


Did  I "believe" I saw this thing, whatever it was? No, I didn't "believe" I saw it, I flat out saw it like dozens of others in that crowd did. "Belief" didn't enter any more than if a commercial plane had gone over us instead.  Would any intelligent person ask the witnesses in that Carol City, FL crowd if they suddenly "believed" they saw saw a UFO?  No, that would be stupid. All of us there saw what we saw, and concurred with the aspects. No 'belief' was involved - which is always where the knee jerk skeptics lose their own credibility.

Pasulka fails to appreciate there is no such thing as "UFO belief", mainly because she hasn't done the necessary background research, including J. Allen Hynek's definition of a UFO.  This, I argue, pretty well disqualifies herself from any serious consideration. But let me go on to her next paragraph to show how much of a bigger hole she manages to dig for herself:

"UFO belief is not a religion in the traditional sense. There are no centralized leaders: no popes, no universally recognized doctrines, no sacred text and no institution capable of enforcing orthodoxy. "

Of course a real UFO observation exhibits none of those religious aspects because it is not a belief!  Here she commits much the same logical faux pas as Michael Shermer did in an earlier WaPo op ed, which I skewered at some length:

Brane Space: Michael Shermer's Predictable Efforts To Apply Quasi Religious ('Sky god') Beliefs To Secular Acceptance of UAP

Wherein I pointedly noted:

 Shermer in his recent Washington Post piece veers off from acceptable logical argument by invoking pseudo-psychological twaddle. He applies a 'homemade' quasi religious belief  template to the recent exposure of serious UAP-UFO incidents such as revealed in the documentary, The Age of Disclosure, i.e.

The Age of Disclosure - Official Trailer | IMDb

And comes up bupkiss, in my opinion.  In like manner, I would say that Ms. Pasulka also veers off from acceptable logical argument by invoking pseudo-religious twaddle. Likely traced to uncritically conflating imagined (or erroneous) sightings with actual UFO sightings - such as made by the Nimitz pilots, or those of us in that N. Miami shopping center 64 years ago.This is Confirmed in her follow up sentence:

"Yet it increasingly performs many of the functions historically attributed to religion. It organizes communities of belief, creates narratives of revelation, offers cosmological meaning and establishes interpretive frameworks through which people understand mysterious experiences and humanity’s place in the universe.”

 Please.  Did those Nimitz Navy pilots - who certainly saw a UFO off their ship in 2004-  then go on to "create communities of belief"?  Did they create "narratives of revelation"?   No, they delivered a sober recounting of their observations on a now famous 60 Minutes episode:

Navy pilots describe encounters with UFOs - YouTube

Clearly those experienced pilots would know from what they observed and recorded (on multiple sensors) there was no need to ascribe any religious or "cosmic meanings".  Similarly, I also stand by the reality of the observation I made with dozens of other folks in that N. Miami shopping center 64 years ago.  Am I inclined to create a "narrative of revelation"? Of course not. I simply maintain we shared an accurate observation of an extraordinary object which was unidentified in accord with J.Allen Hynek's UFO definition.

Pasulka by her 3rd paragraph at last delivers a serious statement on the issue of interest in UFOs:

Counter to what some assume, interest in UFOs is not confined to the sociological fringe. Prominent scientists have raised questions about UFOs

 Prominent scientists like solar physicist Peter Sturrock whose work in the field of UFO analysis- from his book ('The UFO Enigma: A New Review of the Physical Evidence' ) discloses physical parameters are paramount.  Hence, he examines in detail: magnetic, mechanical and thermal properties of contacted soil that cannot be reduced to religious bloviations.  These physically real aspects for investigation  (after UFO contact) include:

i)Mechanical – A continuous or brief mechanical pressure distorts the soil, and this can be measured by a penetration instrument.

ii)Thermal – Measurement of the quantity of water in the soil as compared to other nearby control samples, allows determination of the amount of energy required to reduce the water content to that level.

iii)Magnetic: Some soils have a high magnetic remanence. In this case it is useful to examine the magnetic pattern of the soil with the help of magnetometers either in situ, or in a laboratory.

iv)Radioactivity: Soil samples can be analyzed either in situ, of in the lab using recovered samples.

v)Physico-chemical: Samples from the trace region and control samples (recovered far from trace region) can be analyzed for molecular, atomic and isotopic composition.

Thus, positive results for any or all the above would indicate the UFO which made such contact has to be real. 

Oh, and let's not forget one time skeptic Carl Sagan, "outed" by Northwestern University astronomy professor J. Allen Hynek, e.g.

https://setiathome.berkeley.edu/forum_thread.php?id=76926

Excerpt:  "The pillar of modern space science Dr. Carl Sagan revealed to Dr. J. Allen Hynek, that he knew UFOs were real but could not talk publicly about the matter and possibly risk the loss of academic funding."

     See Also: 



  • And: 

        That Trump UFO Files Release: Richter Scale 10 Fanfare       Matched By 'Meh' Output

        And:        

UFO whistleblower David Grusch: 'We are not alone' | Official Ross Coulthart NewsNation interview

      And:   

A Quantitative Look At The Physics Of Landau Damping - Part 2

 We left off showing:

< dv(t)>xo

  - (e) E /m  Ã²0 t s <D cos( kxo   +  kvo t')>xo +  <sin <(kxo  +  kvo t')> dt


 Which leads to:

< dv(t)>xo =  (eE /m) 2 k/2   Ã²0 t dt' [-  k vo2   sin (k vo t') + 

t'/ kvo   cos  (k vo t')


Then next:

< dv(t)>xo

 (eE /m) 2 k/2  (1/ k vo3) {2 cos (-kvo t') - 1]  + k vo t  sin (k vo t)}   


And: 

< d >xo =    m vo < dv(t)>xo   

dW(t)R   =  < d e >xo   = Net energy gained or lost by all particles                     resonantly interacting with the wave.

=  Ã² ¥-¥  dv<d e>xo =   fo (vo)  =  Ã² dvfo m vo < dv(t)>xo   


Now, take the expansion:

fo (vo)  =  fo (v f)   +  ( vo  -   v f ) f '(v f)   + ........


Whence:

dW(t)R   =    m fo (v fò ¥-¥  dvo  vo < dv(t)>x      +   m f 'o (v f)  

-   m f 'o (v f)  Ã² ¥-¥  dvo  v vo < dv(t)>

 

In the case of a weakly damped wave we know:

     v f     >> vth

So that the approximation:

fo (v f)   <<   v f  f'  (v f ‖  =      v f  -   ( ve  vth 2 f o (v f)   

Can be made, allowing us to write:

dW(t)R   ~  

(eE /m) 2 k/2   mvf ' (v fò ¥-¥  dvo     vo /k vo3  {2 cos (kvo t') - 1]  -

k vo t  sin (k vo t)}   

=   mv f f ' (v f) /k 2  ( (eE /m) 2   Ã² ¥-¥  dvo /vo2 {2 cos (kvo t') - 1]  

+  k vo t  sin (k vo t)}   


Make change of variable:  x =   k vo t

 Ã² ¥-¥  dvo /vo2 {2 cos (kvo t') - 1]   +  k vo t  sin (k vo t)}   

= kt Ã² ¥-¥  dx /x2  [2 (cos x -1) + x sin x] 


To be continued