Oil trader pockets reported $125 mn on suspiciously well-timed Iran bet – media

A massive crude oil bet placed shortly before reports of a possible US-Iran peace deal sent prices crashing and fueled suspicion of insider trading, after the position reportedly generated a $125 million profit in just over an hour.

According to market commentary platform the Kobeissi Letter, nearly 10,000 crude oil short contracts were placed around 3:40 AM (07:40 GMT) on Wednesday “without any major news,” describing the roughly $920 million position as unusually large for that time of day.

At 4:50 AM, Axios reported that Washington and Tehran were nearing an agreement to end the conflict and resume negotiations. Oil prices plunged more than 12% within two hours of the report, turning the short position into an estimated $125 million profit before the price later rebounded, the platform said.

During the US-Israeli war against Iran, prediction and traditional financial markets were flooded with suspiciously well-timed bets linked to airstrikes, ceasefire announcements, and diplomatic developments.

According to The Guardian, traders placed more than $1 billion in seemingly prescient wagers, including an $850,000 bet shortly before US strikes against Iran and around $950 million in oil futures hours before Trump announced a ceasefire in April. AP reported that the ceasefire announcement alone generated more than 413 million predictions and over $100 million in wagers across prediction markets within days.

Keep reading

Report: Saudi Arabia Blocked ‘Project Freedom’ by Denying U.S. Access to Bases

Two unnamed U.S. officials told NBC News on Wednesday that President Donald Trump’s “Project Freedom” — the plan for American military forces to safely escort commercial ships through the Strait of Hormuz — was “paused” after less than 48 hours because Saudi Arabia denied the use of its airbases to protect ships from attacks by Iran.

According to NBC’s sources, the Saudi government was “surprised” and “angered” when Trump announced Project Freedom with a Truth Social post on Sunday afternoon.

Trump said he was acting in response to requests from “countries from all over the world” who were “neutral and innocent bystanders” to the conflict between the U.S. and Iran.

“For the good of Iran, the Middle East, and the United States, we have told these countries that we will guide their ships safely out of these restricted waterways, so that they can freel and ably get on with their business,” the president wrote.

Trump dubbed the initiative “Project Freedom” and said it would begin on Monday, only a few hours after he wrote his Truth Social post. U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) said it was ready to support the effort immediately, as part of America’s commitment to freedom of navigation.

“Our support for this defensive mission is essential to regional security and the global economy as we also maintain the naval blockade,” CENTCOM commander Adm. Bradley Cooper said on Sunday.

CENTCOM’s statement suggested Project Freedom was an extension of an initiative announced by the Department of War the previous week to “enhance coordination and information-sharing among international partners in support of maritime security in the strait.”

“Project Freedom is defensive in nature, focused in scope, temporary in duration [and] with one mission: protecting innocent commercial shipping from Iranian aggression,” Secretary of War Pete Hegseth said on Monday, announcing that two ships had already passed through the Strait of Hormuz under the protection of U.S. destroyers.

Hegseth said Iran “cannot be allowed to block innocent countries and their goods from an international waterway.”

“Iran is the clear aggressor, harassing civilian vessels, threatening mariners from every nation indiscriminately, and weaponizing a critical choke point for its own financial benefit,” he said.

On Tuesday, Hegseth praised the success of Project Freedom at a Pentagon press conference, and said “hundreds more ships from nations around the world are lining up to transit.”

“As a direct gift from the United States to the world, we have established a powerful red, white and blue dome over the strait,” he said.

“American destroyers are on station, supported by hundreds of fighter jets, helicopters, drones and surveillance aircraft providing 24/7 overwatch for peaceful commercial vessels — except Iran’s, of course,” he said.

Keep reading

Among the Few Who Resist Hidden Persuasion

Most folks are caught up in points of view shaped for them by others.

These others can vary from parents, teachers, religious figures, writers of various persuasions, podcasters and ideologically driven politicians of right or left who, in their worse manifestations are wolves in political clothing — a recent example of which now resides in the “Oval Office.”

In other words, there are plenty of would-be sources of inspiration out there, but it is always a good thing to look before you leap.

It is interesting that once a charismatic ideologue becomes a powerful “world leader,” a large number of other less powerful national leaders, to say nothing of their millions of constituents, fall into line.

If there is a political or ideological interest to be served, the less powerful might offer excuses and rationalizations to accept the most barbaric of policies of the principal in power.

This is the case of those Western European leaders going along with the policies of the American-Israeli leadership cabal. A principled stand, or even a stand based on the most cursory knowledge of history, seems to be beyond these subalterns. Yet, taken one by one, they are all “normal” politicians.

‘Normal’ Politicians

Many of the politicians who rotate as elected leaders of democratic nations must learn to reflect an established party line even if it no longer reflects reality. That is, even if it means lying about the present and/or de-contextualizing the past.

Take, for example, the reaction of otherwise normal politicians to the Oct. 7, 2023, Palestinian incursion into Israel. The reaction of Israeli politicians was predictable and a good example of ideological distortion.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu described the incursion as “the worst act of anti-Semitic violence since the Holocaust.” His claim follows the national Israeli narrative that asserts nothing Jewish Israel does can justify such an attack by Palestinians. It must be due to anti-Semitism.

In truth, the 2023 Palestinian incursion and the violence associated with it, had nothing to do with the Jewishness of the majority Israelis, but everything to do with the behavior of the Israeli state: the colonialist dispossession of the Palestinians and the discrimination practiced toward them by an entity that choses to call itself a Jewish state.

The anti-semitic charge might fit into the Israel = home of the Jews narrative believed by just about all Jews in Israel and some in the diaspora, but it is nonetheless misleading.

Until now, the Israeli narrative has been accepted by the West’s “normal” politicians. They have interpreted Oct. 7, 2023, as an anti-Semitic act.

For instance, the British prime minister at the time, Rishi Sunak, called the incursion a “pogrom.”  French President Emmanuel Macron called it an “unspeakable horror” which “feeds on anti-Semitism and propagates it.”

U.S. President Joe Biden labeled the attack “unadulterated evil” and connected it to a global surge in anti-Semitism. The U.S. secretary of state at the time, Antony Blinken, condemned the incursion as a horrific dehumanization of Israelis.

Keir Starmer in the U.K., the current prime minister who was then the leader of the opposition Labour Party, termed the attack the “darkest day in Jewish history since the Holocaust.”

German Chancellor Friedrich Merz called for solidarity against a “new wave of anti-Semitism,” while European Union Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said the incursion was a unique horror and pain inflicted upon the Jewish people. 

Keep reading

US and Iran Exchange Fire in the Strait of Hormuz – US Intercepts Iranian Attacks on 3 Navy Ships

Ceasefire is hanging by a thread.

While military sources still insist that the ceasefire between the US and Iran is still ongoing, worrying reports have arisen of a new exchange of fire between the two countries.

According to the official CENTCOM X post, the US forces intercepted unprovoked Iranian attacks and responded with self-defense strikes as U.S. Navy guided-missile destroyers transited the Strait of Hormuz to the Gulf of Oman, May 7.

Iranian forces reportedly fired missiles and drones at the USS Truxtun, USS Rafael Peralta, and USS Mason as the ships transited the strait.

No US assets were reportedly struck.

The US military eliminated the inbound threats, and fired at the Iranian military facilities responsible for the attack.

Missile and drone launch sites, as well as command and control locations, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance nodes were targeted.

Keep reading

DOJ Investigating Suspicious Iran War Oil Trading Trend: Report

Ups and downs in the war with Iran may have been an opportunity for insiders betting on oil prices to make a killing, according to a new report.

The report from ABC News said the Department of Justice is taking a close look at several oil market trades that came just before critical moments in the war with Iran.

In four transactions under review, the Justice Department and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission are examining trades that netted more than $2.6 billion to individuals who bet oil prices would drop immediately before they did so.

From the start of the conflict on Feb. 28, the oil market has been up and down depending upon Iran’s strategy, America’s response, and expectations that oil might again flow freely.

The London Stock Exchange Group highlighted the trades, which began on March 23, when 15 minutes before President Donald Trump announced a delay on attacks against Iranian infrastructure, a $500 million bet was placed that oil prices would dip.

On April 7, only hours ahead of Trump’s announcement of a temporary halt in hostilities, a $960 million bet was placed that oil prices would fall.

On April 17, 20 minutes before Iran said the Strait of Hormuz would be opened, a $760 million bet was placed that oil prices were going to drop.

On April 21, 15 minutes before the ceasefire was extended, $430 million worth of bets was placed predicting oil prices were going down.

The Guardian noted last month that the conflict has been accompanied by unprecedented betting on events through online betting platforms, with many bets being precisely timed to events in the war.

For example, according to one complaint before the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, six so-called insiders reaped $1.2 million from betting when former Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei would be killed.

Reining this in through legislation is a complex task, if it can be done at all, one expert said.

“Is the problem that we don’t have legislation or that we don’t have enforcement capabilities?” Joshua Mitts, a law professor at Columbia University, said.

“To have a law that can’t really be enforced effectively given the technological limitations, it’s sort of putting the cart before the horse,” he said.

The oil price bets appear suspicious, another expert said.

Keep reading

US greenlights bomb deal for Ukraine

The administration of US President Donald Trump has approved the potential sale of precision-guided bomb kits worth $373.6 million to Ukraine, following congressional pressure over stalled arms deliveries.

The move was announced by the State Department on Tuesday, greenlighting a possible Foreign Military Sale of 1,532 JDAM-Extended Range (JDAM-ER) tail kits and related support equipment to Kiev. The equipment could be used to convert heavy bombs into GPS-guided munitions that can hit targets dozens of kilometers away. Boeing, headquartered in St. Louis, Missouri, is listed as the primary contractor.

The deal does not guarantee that the weapons will be delivered, while the figures represent the maximum quantity and value of the purchase, with details subject to further negotiations and congressional review.

Keep reading

OOPS: Iranians Strike Cargo Ship Owned by Their Chinese Allies in the Strait of Hormuz

Not a very friendly move by Tehran.

Just yesterday (6), the Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi was in Beijing, meeting with his counterpart, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi.

The two ministers reportedly discussed bilateral ties, the Iran-U.S. conflict, the Strait of Hormuz, and regional issues.

But today, as Araghchi is already back in Tehran, the unpredictable happened, with the Iranians reportedly striking a Chinese-owned cargo ship in the Hormuz waterways.

The attack was confirmed by US Ambassador to the United Nations, Mike Waltz.

Newsmax reported:

“A Chinese-owned oil products tanker was attacked near the Strait of Hormuz on Monday, Chinese media outlet Caixin reported, as President Donald Trump launched a U.S. plan that day to help stranded vessels but suspended it a day ‌later.

This was the first time a Chinese oil tanker has been attacked, a ​person with knowledge of the matter told Caixin on Thursday. The unnamed vessel’s deck caught fire and the ship was marked ‘CHINA OWNER & CREW’, according to ⁠Caixin.”

Keep reading

Can We Ever Trust the Government To Be Honest About War?

For decades, the U.S. government has been willing to start wars but not strategically and transparently manage them, consistently misleading its citizenry to justify adventurism abroad. The conduct of the Trump administration in the current war with Iran is no exception. 

President Donald Trump’s claims of “victory” as the war persists through a blockade and multiple troop surges without a clear win-case highlights how optics designed to mislead dictate Washington’s approach to war today. This war could mark a crucial lesson and potential turning point, however, forcing the nation to come to grips with the real costs of violent conflict.

Narrative Wars at the Expense of Transparency

The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that followed the 9/11 attacks in New York City produced an initial outpouring of support. While commenters often blame President George W. Bush and his administration for ill-conceived “adventurism,” a lack of honesty with the American people regarding that adventurism played an equally damaging role. Just as officials lied about a range of issues—including Baghdad’s possession of weapons of mass destruction—to justify their invasion of Iraq, the Trump administration has adopted similar thinking.

Consider Trump’s claims to have already achieved “regime change” in Iran; his constant declarations that the United States has achieved “victory” in the war; Hegseth’s ongoing press restrictions at the Pentagon to avoid hard questions; the administration’s refusal to hold public oversight hearings with the U.S. Congress; and the Department of Defense’s reported slow rolling of U.S. casualty numbers. Each of these claims has proven to be an exaggeration or an outright lie.

Consider the U.S. operation to rescue two airmen shot down deep within Iranian territory in early April. Before the mission, Trump and his team had built a narrative of total air dominance over Iran, meant to assuage the public’s deep skepticism of the war and substantial concern for the safety of U.S. military members across the Middle East.

Then Iran shot down an F-15E Strike Eagle, stranding two of its crew. For days, the world waited, fearing an incident reminiscent of the 1979 hostage crisis and the certain escalation that would follow. Ultimately, the United States rescued the airmen, but at the expense of additional aircraft and a public relations disaster. 

The Trump administration needed to shift the narrative. On April 6, Trump, Hegseth, and other senior U.S. officials held a press conference to tout the success of the rescue. They bragged about the infallibility of the U.S. military and the righteousness of American resolve. They did not explain just how an advanced U.S. aircraft was shot down over supposedly dominated Iranian skies by a supposedly destroyed Iranian military, nor how additional aircraft worth hundreds of millions of dollars met a similar fate during the rescue.

Instead of leveling with Americans, the White House leaned further into their would-be success. In the same press conference, Trump threatened to jail a journalist who leaked information about the incident in the first place, claiming an unspecified “leaker” had put U.S. national security at risk by sharing information about a second pilot who was still lost in Iran. “We’re going to go to the media company that released it, and we’re going to say, ‘National security, give it up or go to jail,'” he proclaimed.

In another instance earlier in the war, Iran killed six U.S. service members in Kuwait who were operating a mobile command center with little to no real protection from missile and drone strikes. It took days for the government to confirm the deaths and weeks to obtain the details surrounding the incident. While the Trump administration repeatedly stressed that all American service members and citizens were safe, the reality was already known: Far too many U.S. installations across the Middle East have long been exposed to such attacks, serving as easy targets for Iran in any such conflict. Soldiers who survived the strike refuted the official explanation from Washington. 

The primary concern of the U.S. public is the well-being of Americans abroad. Fears over the safety of American troops and civilians damaged domestic support for previous wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Vietnam. To avoid reporting on such casualties while simultaneously rejecting congressional oversight over a war that it did not authorize is to recognize the war’s limited legitimacy. 

Keep reading

Israel Says Preparing For Escalation With Iran, Didn’t Know Deal Was Close: ‘Series Of Targets Ready’

Wednesday saw yet another early morning Axios ‘scoop’ that within hours of being issued proved premature and too out front, given talk of Iran and the US being ‘close’ to a deal was quickly denied by Tehran and even President Trump quickly acknowledged it’s “too soon” to plan peace talks with Iran.

But the headline of “US and Iran closing in on one-page memo to end war” was enough to raise alarm bells in Israel, which has insisted that the conflict must end with a nuclear-free Iran.

“Israel was unaware that US President Donald Trump was close to reaching an agreement with Iran to end the fighting and open the Strait of Hormuz,” an Israeli official told Army Radio soon after the optimistic peace deal headlines went international.

“We were preparing for an escalation,” the official said. Indeed the last couple weeks of stalled Pakistan-mediated talks have seen several reports out of Israel saying the Netanyahu government is waiting for the ‘green light’ from Washington to renew the aerial bombing campaign, which took place over prior 38 days as part of Operation Epic Fury.

But as of Tuesday Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced that Epic Fury was ending, and that Project Freedom – to open the Strait of Hormuz – is the new focus. But even after that President Trump in the evening announced a ‘pause’ to allow negotiations to proceed.

So there has been much confusion and contradictory signaling out of Washington to say the least. Tehran has meanwhile made clear its “finger is on the trigger” – but Israel is also saying the same thing.

For example, IDF Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Eyal Zamir on Wednesday made it known that military has a “series of targets” ready to strike in Iran at the moment the war resumes.

“Cooperation with the United States military and coordination continue at all times, and we are monitoring the situation,” he stated during a visit to southern Lebanon, where Israel ground forces are occupying territory.

“In Iran, we have a further series of targets ready for attack. We are on high alert to return to an intense and broad campaign that will allow us to deepen our achievements and further weaken the Iranian regime,” Zamir said further.

Keep reading

Israel strikes Beirut for first time in almost a month; Netanyahu, Katz say target was Radwan Force chief

Israel carries out its first strike in Beirut since before the ceasefire in Lebanon entered into effect on April 16, with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Israel Katz saying it targeted the commander of Hezbollah’s elite Radwan Force.

“The IDF has just struck in Beirut the commander of the Radwan Force in the Hezbollah terror organization to eliminate him,” the joint statement says.

Netanyahu and Katz say Radwan Force operatives “were responsible for firing [rockets] at Israeli communities and harming IDF soldiers.”

“No terrorist has immunity, Israel’s long arm will reach every enemy and murderer. We promised to bring security to the residents of the north. This is how we act, and this is how we will continue to act,” they add.

The IDF has yet to issue a comment on the rare strike in the Lebanese capital, the first in almost a month, with the last having been on April 8. Israel and Lebanon agreed to a ceasefire on April 16.

Keep reading