HMM:

More:

I started running the numbers on this and it’s lining up too cleanly.

China imports about 11 million barrels of crude per day, with roughly 40-45% of that flowing through the Strait of Hormuz (mainly from Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Iran).

Their strategic petroleum reserves are estimated by analysts at around 90-100 days of total consumption at current burn rates of ~14-15 million barrels/day including refined products.

Cut off from Hormuz and they’re staring down the barrel of empty tanks in roughly three months.

That’s not a sustainable position. Their only realistic play would be immediate, heavy domestic rationing, factories slowed, trucking curtailed, civilian fuel limits, the works. That would slam their economy and ripple hard through global supply chains.

Remind me again…

How long does a president have under the War Powers Resolution before he has to go to Congress for an extension on military actions?

Oh, right—90 days.

Nobody seems to think Epic Fury will last as long as 90 days, but nobody really knows, either.

ACTUALLY, PRETTY MUCH EVERYONE KNOWS EXACTLY WHO NEEDS TO HEAR THIS…:

…but the people who do need to hear it seem to be paid to not listen.

BLUE CITY BLUES: Starbucks leaving Seattle? Coffee giant to move corporate jobs to Nashville. “Starbucks will relocate a portion of its Seattle-based corporate workforce as it expands operations to Tennessee. According to the coffee giant, the move will affect roles tied to direct and indirect sourcing operations teams within Starbucks’ supply chain organization. Starbucks claimed that Seattle will remain its North America and Global Support headquarters, but said it will continue evaluating whether additional teams and roles should transition to Nashville over time.”

A REMINDER THAT EZRA KLEIN’S “JOURNOLIST” NEVER DIED; IT JUST MOVED TO SLACK:

Narratives don’t establish themselves, bub.

COME SEE THE VIOLENCE INHERENT IN THE LEFTISM: UCSF staffer allegedly threatens to ‘hunt’ down and ‘kill’ conservative activist.

A woman who appears to be a University of California at San Francisco employee was caught on video allegedly threatening to “hunt” down and “kill” a conservative activist who was protesting against cutting off the healthy body parts of gender-confused children.

Parents’ rights activist Beth Bourne told The College Fix she filed a police report after the Feb. 21 incident outside the California Democratic Party convention in San Francisco.

Bourne also posted a video of the confrontation Monday on X. Several commenters identified the woman as Madeline Mann, an associate director at the UCSF Clinical and Translational Science Institute.

The Post Millennial also identified the individual as Mann; it described her as a “transgender activist” who has a daughter who identifies as male.

Exit quote: “The email directed inquiries to institute Director of Program Administration Molly Belinski. She did not respond to an email from The Fix asking if Mann was the individual in the video and why her bio page is no longer on the website.”

THESE CCP SHILLS ARE NOT DIFFICULT TO SPOT AND DISMISS…:

…so it’s a safe bet the people parroting them are CCP shills, too.

KRUISER’S MORNING BRIEFING: The Ultimate Theatre Kid Gets the Hook in Congress. “Nearly every image of Walz in our library looks like he’s performing in a Broadway musical. This man is the ultimate theatre kid — playacting as a serious, credible politician.”

SPEAK SOFTLY AND CARRY A BIG, SWINGING… STICK:

BEN THOMPSON ON THE RIFT BETWEEN THE PENTAGON AND ANTHROPIC ON ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE: Anthropic and Alignment.

Why would the U.S. government want to kneecap one of its AI champions?

In fact, [Anthropic CEO Dario] Amodei already answered the question: if nuclear weapons were developed by a private company, and that private company sought to dictate terms to the U.S. military, the U.S. would absolutely be incentivized to destroy that company. The reason goes back to the question of international law, North Korea, and the rest:

International law is ultimately a function of power; might makes right.
There are some categories of capabilities — like nuclear weapons — that are sufficiently powerful to fundamentally affect the U.S.’s freedom of action; we can bomb Iran, but we can’t North Korea.

To the extent that AI is on the level of nuclear weapons — or beyond — is the extent that Amodei and Anthropic are building a power base that potentially rivals the U.S. military.

Anthropic talks a lot about alignment; this insistence on controlling the U.S. military, however, is fundamentally misaligned with reality.

Current AI models are obviously not yet so powerful that they rival the U.S. military; if that is the trajectory, however — and no one has been more vocal in arguing for that trajectory than Amodei — then it seems to me the choice facing the U.S. is actually quite binary:

Option 1 is that Anthropic accepts a subservient position relative to the U.S. government, and does not seek to retain ultimate decision-making power about how its models are used, instead leaving that to Congress and the President.

Option 2 is that the U.S. government either destroys Anthropic or removes Amodei.

Much more to chew on at the link. Fascinating piece.

REASON TV: Wikipedia is in Trouble (Video).

Further thoughts here:

WELL, YES:

But Democrats have no scruples.

DATA REPUBLICAN: The Fall of the NGO-Administrative Complex.

The global order is no fan of Iran. Atlantic writer and former National Endowment for Democracy board member Anne Applebaum has consistently named Iran, alongside Russia and China, as one of the three greatest autocracies threatening the world. Senator Chris Murphy, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and a speaker at the Council on Foreign Relations, drew an explicit parallel during the 2022 Mahsa Amini massacres, declaring, “Just as we stood together with the people of Ukraine during their revolution of dignity, the United States must continue standing with the people of Iran.”

One might think that these defenders of democracy would celebrate the removal of the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, a brutal fundamentalist religious totalitarian.

Instead, those same voices are now loudly condemning the airstrikes. Murphy’s reaction offered no sympathy for the thousands of Iranians killed by the regime—only outrage at Trump: “In America, we don’t allow one doddering, self-obsessed old man to waste our money on a dangerous, disastrous overseas war.” Similarly, Applebaum has criticized Operation Epic Fury’s supposed lack of strategic coherence, not the target.

What is louder than the condemnations of the establishment now is what they failed to do over the previous four decades. They never deployed the same aggressive democratization strategies toward Iran that they’ve applied across the Middle East and Africa. Instead, successive administrations released billions in frozen Iranian assets, negotiated the infamous Iran nuclear deal, and—as Politico’s 2017 Project Cassandra investigation documented—deliberately limited prosecution of Hezbollah drug trafficking networks operating inside the United States to protect those negotiations.

In short, those backing the so-called “rules-based liberal international order” actually wanted Ali Khamenei’s regime to remain in place. Actions speak louder than words. For an order that defines itself by the spread of democracy, this is a striking paradox.

Read the whole thing.

TRUMP’S ENDGAME:

The first major decision he faces is whether to insist on formal acceptance of all three objectives before declaring a ceasefire—effectively demanding unconditional surrender. Past patterns and his public messaging suggest he will not. Such an ultimatum risks prolonging the war, alienating allies weary of rising energy costs, and inviting domestic backlash over casualties and economic disruption. Trump has already signaled openness to talks with members of the regime, framing negotiation as proof of American dominance rather than weakness.

If Trump announces a ceasefire while the regime remains intact, he will de facto choose regime preservation. Negotiating with the regime to dismantle its capabilities is therefore not merely a diplomatic step—it is a strategic decision to leave that regime in power. This is the most likely outcome. He will point to degraded missile stocks, crippled naval assets, damaged nuclear infrastructure, and weakened proxies as evidence that his concrete promise to the American public, the West, and Israel has been fulfilled. The aspirational promise to the Iranian people—freedom and dignity—would remain unresolved.

But ending the war without securing a path to regime change raises three critical follow-up questions. Does Trump force Tehran to accept, as the price of a ceasefire, all three core demands—nuclear dismantlement, missile elimination, and an end to proxy financing? Does he try to settle for progress on the nuclear file alone? Or does he repeat his behavior of last June and end the fighting before receiving any concrete commitment from the Iranians at all?

Tehran, of course, will seek a ceasefire without binding conditions. If forced to make a concrete concession up front, it will discuss, as it did in the recent talks in Geneva and Oman, nuclear compromises while resisting negotiations on missiles and proxies.

Trump cannot afford to blink here. The endgame requires a comprehensive settlement, not tactical trades.

If Iran dismantles its nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief while retaining its missile arsenal and proxy networks, the regime will simply rebuild. Hezbollah, Hamas, the Houthis, and Iran-backed militias in Iraq would soon be flush with cash. Tehran has demonstrated repeatedly that it can regenerate these capabilities even under pressure.

All three demands must therefore remain a single package. Ideally, Trump should make a ceasefire conditional on formal, authoritative, and public acceptance of all three. At a minimum, Trump must make clear that no sanctions relief—on any front—will come until there is verifiable agreement on the full set. Anything less would leave the regime intact while allowing it to regenerate the very capabilities the war was meant to eliminate.

Partial concessions would merely postpone the problem, allowing a battered but surviving regime to regroup and threaten the region again. Trump’s “maximum pressure” strategy loses its edge the moment relief arrives prematurely.

Related:

BLESSED ARE THE PEACEMAKERS (EVEN IF THEY HAVE TO FIRST WAGE A LITTLE WAR):

WOLVES IN SHEEP’S CLOTHING:

MARK JUDGE: ‘VHS Forever’ and the Transformative Power of Tech and Entertainment.

Oana Godeanu-Kenworthy, a professor at Miami University, is the author of a great new book, Videotape, which offers an insightful history of the VCR and the VHS tape, from their invention in Japan to the last-standing Blockbuster store in Bend, Oregon. One of the most interesting chapters, “Viewing Parties and the Party,” recounts the history of the VHS in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union in the 1970s and ’80s. As VCR players became more affordable and popular in the ’80s, more and more of them were smuggled into Communist countries. Kenworthy describes the “viewing parties” that sprang up in the Eastern Block:

Crammed in small apartment buildings, a dozen or so people split the costs of the VCR rental or paid a small entry fee to the host of the party. News of the parties spread by word of mouth, from teenagers loitering behind the blocks of flats, to neighbors, relatives, or work colleagues. The most popular genres were films featuring Jean-Claude Van Damme or Bruce Lee, the action films of Chuck Norris, Sylvester Stallone, and Arnold Schwarzenegger, but also miniseries such as The Thorn Birds (1983), or Shogun (1980). Since most VHS tapes ran for two hours, and most feature films were 90 minutes, the space left at the end was filled with MTV music videos or even advertisements. Commercials were an unknown genre in the communist economy and, unlike in the West, where the videotape enabled viewers to fast-forward past the ads, in Eastern Europe, they functioned as sheer entertainment, since the products they promoted could not be found on the local market. In the Soviet Union, where the legal penalties against illegal videotapes were harsher than in Romania, people found even more creative ways to dodge the police. Instead of hosting in a private apartment, in Baku, Azerbaijan, grubby taxi minivans of Latvian manufacturing, popularly known as Rafiks, doubled as mobile screening rooms equipped with a VCR and a color TV. They’d tour the city and then show up in neighborhood streets at random times, like an American ice-cream truck, offering Soviet children a motley fare of Tom and Jerry cartoons, B-category action movies, and silly Hollywood comedies crudely dubbed in Russian, but immensely enjoyable anyway.

Kenworthy notes the irony of Nikita Khrushchev telling Richard Nixon in 1959 that he was wrong to boast of Americans having color TVs while the Soviets did not—that the technology responsible for color television was irrelevant. In fact, it was that very technology that, years later, would help bring down the Soviet Union.

As I noted last month in my review of John Kleinheinz’s 2023 book, The Siberia Job:

The Soviet Union began running episodes of the CBS nighttime soap opera Dallas in the early 1980s just to show how eeeeevil those scheming bourgeois Texas capitalist hoarders and wreckers could be. The best-laid plans of mice and Mensheviks backfired when Soviet audiences gazed in awe at the wealth of the Ewings and wanted a little of that for themselves. Even the quotidian details of American life seemed astonishing to them, as Karol Markowicz, now with the New York Post, wrote during her blogging days:

In 1977, the year I was born and the year my father, his mother, his aunt and many other Jews left the Soviet Union (my mother and I left in 1978), the Soviet propaganda machine began circulating a rumor. It went, roughly: life in America is so terrible that the old people eat cat food.

This was…perplexing.

People didn’t quite get it: they have food specifically made for cats in America? What a country!

A lot of things about America remained beyond their comprehension.

The disparity in quality of life previously threw both Soviet peasants and grandees a curve decades earlier, Jonah Goldberg wrote a couple of years ago:

Stalin allowed the film version of the Grapes of Wrath—retitled The Road to Wrath—to be seen in the Soviet Union because it was a searing indictment of the failures of capitalism. Soviet citizens saw it and were like, “Holy crap! The peasants all have cars and pickup trucks in America? Man, we’re poor.” Stalin quickly yanked it from theaters.

No doubt, the videos coming from America, plus photos of pre-Ayatollah Iran are helping to fuel the ongoing revolution there. In 1961, JFK’s FCC chairman Newton Minow infamously told the National Association of Broadcasters:

Keep your eyes glued to that set until the station signs off. I can assure you that what you will observe is a vast wasteland.

You will see a procession of game shows, formula comedies about totally unbelievable families, blood and thunder, mayhem, violence, sadism, murder, western bad men, western good men, private eyes, gangsters, more violence, and cartoons.

And endlessly, commercials — many screaming, cajoling, and offending.

I think he meant all of that as being a very bad thing, not comprehending the eventual power of that metaphorical vast wasteland to inspire the defeat of the real thing.

ZINEB RIBOUA: China is Scrambling.

First, the Iranian counterweight is gone. In 2021, Xi told senior Party officials that “the East is rising and the West is declining,” that America was “the biggest source of chaos in the present-day world,” and that China was entering a period of strategic opportunity. Iran was central to that thesis. Beijing needed a defiant Tehran to keep Washington pinned down in the Gulf, to sustain a sanctions-proof energy corridor, and above all, to stand as living evidence that American power had hard limits. The entire architecture of CCP’s dogma of inevitability, which rested on Iran’s ability to endure, and Epic Fury removed the foundation in a single afternoon.

Khamenei was the man who made the thesis feel real. Beijing’s relationship with the Islamic Republic was never really ideological, but Khamenei’s survival was the single most useful fact in Chinese foreign policy. Here was a man Washington had threatened, sanctioned, plotted against, and encircled for over four decades, and he was still giving Friday sermons. Xi personally signed the comprehensive strategic partnership with Khamenei’s government. He personally authorized the weapons transfers. And he personally wielded the Security Council veto. None of it kept Khamenei alive for one additional hour once Washington decided he was finished.

Second, Xi’s own story is collapsing from the inside. The story he told 1.4 billion people, that America is a declining power incapable of decisive force projection, does not match what happened in seventy-two hours over Tehran. State media can suppress the footage and the censors can scrub Weibo, but the ones who matter most, the military planners, the foreign policy professionals, the provincial officials who read between the lines for a living, know what they saw. And if the story is wrong about Iran, the unavoidable next question is whether it was ever right about anything else.

Read the whole thing.