The fuel problem is about to become a fuel crisis. On Monday, the Houthis in Yemen threatened to block Saudi oil shipments through the Red Sea. That could further reduce the world’s oil supply by 4-5 million barrels per day, which is already strained by the war with Iran. Saudi Arabia had been using its East-West Pipeline to bypass Hormuz, sending as much as 5 million barrels of crude per day to the Red Sea port of Yanbu for export. A successful Houthi blockade could now put much of that supply at risk. It may not stop the oil altogether, but it could force tankers to stop sailing, pay far higher insurance costs or attempt longer and more expensive routes. And will that extra cost be passed down to consumers? I’m going to go with yes on that hypothetical. This comes at a time when U.S. commercial and strategic crude inventories have fallen to roughly 43 days of refinery demand, their lowest level in 45 years. The Strategic Petroleum Reserve alone is down to 316.5 million barrels, its lowest level since 1983, after Washington released nearly 100 million barrels to help offset the shortage created by the Iran war. America is not 43 days away from running out of oil: domestic wells are still producing and imports continue. But the emergency cushion that has helped contain fuel prices is rapidly thinning. If both Hormuz and the Red Sea remain impaired, the next phase will be measured not simply in oil prices, but in gasoline, diesel, airfares, shipping costs and inflation. With this economic fallout, you would think the U.S. would turn down the temperature of its war with Iran but President Trump does not seem poised to do that. He posted on Tuesday that Iran will pay “many times over” for every American soldier that is killed. The Pentagon confirmed that at least two service members died in Jordan last week when Iran struck the Muwaffaq Salti Air Base. A third person may have also been killed but has yet to be identified. The U.S. bombed Iran for a 10th consecutive night on Monday and Iran continued its retaliatory strikes. So much for peace. The post The Fuel Problem Is About to Become a Fuel Crisis appeared first on Redacted.

There may be a Flock camera watching you drive through your own neighborhood and you may not even know what it looks like. Flock Safety’s automated cameras photograph passing vehicles, record their license plates and locations, and place that information into a searchable network used by law-enforcement agencies. More than 100,000 cameras are now reportedly operating across over 6,000 American communities. This is mass surveillance hiding in plain sight and a direct threat to the Fourth Amendment. Americans have a right to move through their communities without the government quietly creating a searchable record of where they go, when they arrive and whom they may be visiting. The company says the technology helps police find stolen cars, locate missing people and catch violent criminals. Critics argue that it creates a nationwide system capable of tracking the movements of millions of people who are not suspected of committing any crime. The debate is no longer simply about whether cameras can help solve crimes. It is about who may search the data, how that information can be used and whether Americans should have to surrender their privacy to move freely through their own communities. Tune in to Redacted today at 4 p.m. Eastern, where we’ll discuss America’s rapidly expanding Flock camera network with Connor Boyack, bestselling author, researcher, activist and president of the Libertas Institute. The post America’s Surveillance Network Is Hiding in Plain Sight appeared first on Redacted.

About 10,000 people across nearly two dozen villages in southern Iran were left without access to drinking water after a U.S. strike destroyed a desalination plant in the village of Bonji near the Strait of Hormuz. The U.S. just targeted a facility whose primary function is to provide drinking water to the civilian population. Wouldn’t this be considered a war crime? Under Article 54 of international humanitarian law, intentionally attacking civilian infrastructure, such as drinking water installations, is prohibited unless it’s being used for military purposes, which it wasn’t. As if taking out the region’s water supply were not enough, the attack came during an excessive heat warning, making the loss of water even more dangerous. How did Iran respond to the incident and the other clear breaches of the recent MOU? Iran’s deputy foreign minister, Kazem Gharibabadi, stated, “The U.S. has violated and suspended all its commitments within the framework of the Islamabad MOU. We also likewise have suspended all of our commitments as a result; we are no longer implementing those commitments.” He added that Tehran is now “busy defending the country.” Meanwhile, the Iranian Embassy in India released footage showing the destruction of a bridge. It also condemned the U.S. strike on a maritime surveillance tower at Chabahar Port, an attack Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth publicly celebrated on social media. Since Wednesday, U.S. strikes have reportedly hit nine bridges, two airports, a railroad junction, and a road tunnel. Iranian authorities say at least 41 people have been killed and 408 wounded this month, including three women and one child. In a powerful statement, Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baqaei responded to these U.S. strikes: “For a state that once cast itself as the global champion of order, liberalism, and the war on terrorism, proudly displaying images of destroyed bridges and civilian infrastructure has become its only remaining victory. Yet with the collapse of every bridge, every tower, and every civilian facility, it is not merely steel and concrete that is being reduced to rubble. It is America’s moral standing—along with the entire architecture of international law and the civilizational claims of the West—that is crumbling before the world’s eyes.” None of that seems to matter, though, because Washington will defend its actions, as it always does. In the end, destroying civilian infrastructure appears to be acceptable, just as long as it’s done by the U.S. or Israel. The post When War Has No Rules appeared first on Redacted.

Who should appear on a nation’s currency? Its greatest historical figures, or whoever best reflects today’s diversity targets? That’s a ridiculous question, right? Not really. The UK Cabinet recently urged the Bank of England to rethink who appears on British banknotes. And their proposal wasn’t about security features or artistic design. It was about identity. According to correspondence sent to the Bank, Cabinet Office officials argued that Britain’s current historical figures reflect “limited dimensions of British identity.” They called for “greater representation of women, disabled people, ethnic minority communities and LGBT+ individuals.” The Bank of England appears to have its own agenda, moving away from historical figures on banknotes altogether in favor of British wildlife. That means Churchill, Jane Austen, J.M.W. Turner, and Alan Turing would eventually make way for animals such as the hedgehog, badger, fox, and puffin. It seems that one institution wants more diversity and the other wants more wildlife. Either way, Britain’s historical figures lose their place. What precedent does that set? Will every new government redesign the nation’s banknotes to reflect the latest political agendas and cultural trends? The post The War on Britain’s Historical Figures appeared first on Redacted.

More than 180 Iranian lawmakers signed a joint statement Tuesday declaring the Iran-U.S. memorandum of understanding “dead” and calling for retaliation. The lawmakers say the June 17 agreement, signed by President Trump and Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, was meant to bring an end to hostilities and pave the way for peace negotiations. Instead, Washington resumed bombing Iran. Is that really any surprise, though? U.S. Central Command announced Monday: “At 3 p.m. ET today, U.S. Central Command forces began launching an additional round of strikes against Iran.” Trump also formally notified Congress that Washington had resumed the war with Iran and would continue to carrying out “limited defensive strikes.” Backing up that position, Trump posted on social media: _”The Hormuz Strait is OPEN, and will remain OPEN, with or without Iran.” _ He also added, “The U.S.A. will be, from this point forward, known as ‘THE GUARDIAN OF THE HORMUZ STRAIT,’ but as such, and as a matter of FAIRNESS, will be reimbursed, at the rate of 20% on all cargo shipped.” Guardian of the Hormuz Strait? A 20% toll? That’s an interesting position, considering that just three weeks ago, Secretary of State Marco Rubio declared, “No country is allowed to charge tolls or fees on an international waterway.” Someone must have jogged the President’s memory because he quickly reversed course, announcing: “I have decided to replace the 20% United States Reimbursement Fee with Trade and Investment Deals that the various Gulf States will be making into the United States. Those Investments will be MASSIVE.” When will these strikes end? Trump answered that one himself: “Strikes on Iran will continue until I say enough.” Meanwhile… The U.S. has reportedly poured more than $30 billion into this war, with some estimates putting the real price tag closer to $100 billion. How much more taxpayer money and how many more lives will be sacrificed before enough is enough? The post So Much for the Peace Agreement appeared first on Redacted.