President Trump's weekend somewhat comical, hyperbolic, or even absurd proclamation that he was planning an attack on Iran which would have been "the biggest attack since World War II" and could have been "disastrous" for Iran - before being called off - is raising serious questions.
It is now month six of the war, but the same question could have been aptly posed in just the opening week of Operation Epic Fury: what constitutes a strategic 'win' and end goal for the United States in Iran? In a latest sign of growing desperation, now becoming more evident and out in the open, US Central Command (CENTCOM) formally asked military analysts to develop "creative and unconventional" ways to pressure Iran amid a broader administration reassessment of strategy.
CENTCOM file imageCNN says it has obtained an email sent out from US Central Command's intelligence branch across an array of military analysts urging new ideas. It is very uncommon for top commanders to broadly send such a request to lower-level troops.
"We are looking for new creative and unconventional ways to pressure and punish Iran," a CENTCOM intelligence officer wrote in the broad pitch.
This comes after several times throughout this conflict, Trump vowed major attacks - which were later called off, also as Washington clearly can't find an exit.
The Pentagon actually rather quickly confirmed that this email calling for 'ideas' was indeed sent. "U.S. Central Command has a long history of thinking and working in innovative ways," CENTCOM spokesman Capt. Timothy Hawkins said in a statement. "Admiral Cooper, in particular, reaches out to members of our great team, regardless of rank, to achieve the highest levels of operational performance possible."
CNN described the move as essentially 'crowdsourcing' strike plans and strategy:
The crowdsourcing-style query, which military officials said was unusual over email, is one sign of the limited — and potentially unpalatable —options available to Trump to force Iran into a deal on his terms. Hoping to find an alternative, the official at CENTCOM kicked off the brainstorming session via email to see if anyone had a better idea. The second source said CENTCOM is looking at everything, acknowledging it needs to reevaluate the strategy.
Apparently Washington just can't seem to learn any of the obvious lessons of its own 'forever wars' of the last decades, stretching all the way back to Vietnam.
'Limited' bombing often leads to more massive bombing, which typically fails to achieve objectives - after which the question of introducing a ground force becomes more pressing. And then forces get entrenched in yet another quagmire, where 'winning' gets harder and harder to define, and where exit strategies become elusive.
The CNN report points to the strategic conundrum in the following: "The request illustrated the challenge facing Trump as he considers three difficult paths: expanding the air campaign, committing US troops to riskier operations on the ground, or reaching an agreement that falls short of some of his original war objectives."
🇺🇸🇮🇷 The U.S military is officially out of ideas on how to tackle Iran
According to CNN, the Pentagon sent out an email asking troops for ‘creative and unconventional’ ideas to punish Iran
That's CNN, not the Babylon Bee
The bizarre request came from an officer in U.S Central… pic.twitter.com/kUgNYigh3k
Also of note is the following:
The president’s most senior military adviser, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Dan Caine, has acknowledged publicly that bombing alone is unlikely to accomplish all Trump’s previously stated objectives for the war.
"Air power has its limits," Caine told lawmakers last month.
One mainstream, establishment publication referenced that America keeps running headlong into the trap of "The Curse of Middle-Sized Wars".
Tyler Durden Tue, 08/04/2026 - 05:45Authored by Steve Watson via Modernity News,
West Midlands Police force is actively inviting non-Muslim officers and staff to go without food and water during Ramadan as a deliberate "act of solidarity" with Muslim colleagues.
The force presents this as a way for officers to grasp the "significance of Ramadan" for Muslim residents in one of Britain's most diverse regions. Critics see it as yet another example of public institutions bending their culture around one faith while the foundational principle of policing without fear or favour collapses under diversity dogma.
The invitation comes from the West Midlands Association of Muslim Police. Colleagues of all backgrounds are encouraged to fast for a day during the month-long festival, with the money they would normally spend on lunch donated to charity.
'I look forward to Christmas when all the Muslim officers have a tree in their house and join in.'@CressidaWetton reacts as West Midlands Police officers are invited to fast during Ramadan as an act of solidarity and to raise money for charity. pic.twitter.com/rmGxRxTKk8
— GB News (@GBNEWS) August 2, 2026A force spokesman confirmed the practice has run for a number of years: "The West Midlands Association of Muslim Police has, for a number of years, invited colleagues from all faiths and backgrounds to fast for a day to raise money for charity during Ramadan. It is entirely a matter for officers and staff if they wish to take part."
"This is an initiative which is undertaken at a number of organisations around the country. The West Midlands has a large and diverse population, including many Muslim residents, and it is important for officers and staff to understand the significance of Ramadan to those communities," the spokesman added.
Documents obtained by the Telegraph through freedom of information requests show the force is held up as a model of inclusivity. A New Forest council diversity training memo praises West Midlands Police for supporting fasting colleagues with flexi-working so they can spend time with families.
It notes: "What's more, increasing numbers of non-Muslim staff have taken up fasting each year as an act of solidarity with their Muslim colleagues, adding to the family feel of WMP culture." Councillors were urged to brainstorm their own versions of such inclusivity.
Shadow Justice Secretary Nick Timothy did not share the enthusiasm. He called the encouragement of non-Muslim staff to observe Ramadan "wholly inappropriate."
"The police should be a national force for all of us, observing the same standards regardless of creed," Timothy said, adding "There should be no special measures in place for any faith."
"We should not be changing police culture to comply with the practices of one religion," he continued, adding "Expectations should be uniform, and non-Muslim police being encouraged to fast in Ramadan is wholly inappropriate. We need to abolish the Public Sector Equality Duty, which provides the legal framework for much of this, and ensure there is one rule for all of us - not special treatment for certain groups."
Major Andrew Fox, senior associate fellow at the Henry Jackson Society, went further. He linked the initiative to the force's recent controversies, including the exclusion of Israeli football supporters based on intelligence later shown to be false or exaggerated.
"West Midlands Police's judgment is increasingly open to question," Fox stated, adding "Supporting officers of every faith is entirely appropriate. Encouraging staff to participate in a religious observance is not. The police exist to enforce the law impartially, not to promote or facilitate religious practices."
Concerns have also been raised about operational readiness. Front-line officers abstaining from food and water for extended periods during demanding shifts raises obvious questions about concentration, physical performance and public safety. Yet the force frames the voluntary fast as cultural enrichment rather than a potential operational risk.
This episode does not stand alone. It fits a pattern of ideological capture that a Policy Exchange analysis has shown is systematically undermining British policing. Forces across England and Wales have poured hundreds of millions into DEI measures and the Police Race Action Plan since 2020.
The think-tank's head of crime and justice, David Spencer, warned that police chiefs have "sought to entrench the radical ideology of 'anti-racism' into British policing." In doing so, he argued, "some police chiefs have set policing against its own foundational principle - to act 'without fear or favour'."
Spencer concluded: "It is a modern-day tragedy that many of our Chief Constables simply cannot be trusted to resolve this alone. It's time to restore the principle of 'equality before the law' in policing. Nothing less than the fundamental legitimacy of British policing is at stake."
The human cost of this ideology has already been measured in real lives. In Southampton in December 2025, 18-year-old university student Henry Nowak was stabbed multiple times. His attacker, Vickrum Digwa, claimed he was the victim of a racist assault.
Bodycam footage shows officers treating the bleeding Nowak as the aggressor, handcuffing him while he pleaded that he could not breathe. He lost consciousness shortly after and died. An inquest has been ordered to examine whether the handcuffing and delays in medical treatment contributed to his death under Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Serving and former Hampshire officers later told former Home Secretary Suella Braverman that mandatory DEI sessions had "drummed into us about our white privilege and unconscious bias."
The external trainer was described as "deeply hateful of white people and our culture." Officers reported feeling controlled and pressured to adopt specific views on race. Hampshire's chief constable denied the existence of two-tier policing, but the bodycam evidence and the subsequent admissions tell a different story.
Similar patterns appear elsewhere. Footage from Birmingham earlier this year captured officers intervening in a street attack by shielding three black males who had been punching a white teenager, then arresting and manhandling the bloodied victim while the attackers walked free.
Officers were heard ordering the restrained teenager into a police car with language that left little doubt about the direction of their aggression. West Midlands Police, the same force asked to participate in fasting, asked the public to stop sharing the clips rather than account for the conduct.
The same ideological framework has been institutionalised through training that forces officers to accept the concept of "white privilege." Thames Valley Police has mandated equity sessions focusing on white privilege, micro-aggressions and the shift from non-racist to anti-racist practice.
An independent review found the material could be seen as demonising white officers, creating barriers to learning and generating resentment among white male officers who felt disadvantaged.
Former government adviser and ex-police officer Rory Geoghegan observed that officers "deserve far better from their leaders than to be crudely categorised by skin colour and subjected to reductive, divisive ideologies."
When non-Muslim officers are invited to participate in Islamic religious observance under the banner of solidarity, while the same institutions have spent years instructing white officers on their supposed privilege and have been caught prioritising racial narratives over the immediate medical needs of a dying white teenager, the pattern is clear.
The Public Sector Equality Duty and the DEI apparatus that flows from it have produced a policing culture more interested in managed optics and protected group sensitivities than in equal application of the law.
Nick Timothy's call to abolish that duty is not abstract. It is a recognition that one rule for all has been replaced by a hierarchy of protected identities. West Midlands Police's Ramadan invitation is simply the latest public expression of that hierarchy.
British policing was built on the principle that the uniform represents the same standards for every citizen. That principle is being hollowed out, one diversity initiative at a time. The public is noticing. Trust is eroding. And the consequences are no longer theoretical.
Your support is crucial in helping us defeat mass censorship. Please consider donating via Locals or check out our unique merch. Follow us on X @ModernityNews.
Tyler Durden Tue, 08/04/2026 - 05:00Iron ore futures in Singapore fell to their lowest intraday level in one year as deteriorating fundamentals continued to weigh on the market.
Steel demand in China remains soft amid an ongoing construction slump and weakening mill margins, while supply continues to increase, reinforcing expectations of a growing surplus.
Bloomberg noted earlier that the latest concerns surrounding major physical trader Radiant World added another layer of uncertainty, but the bigger bearish narrative remains centered on lackluster demand failing to absorb rising supply.
The outlet adds more color:
Vitol Group and Cargill Inc. have stopped doing business with Radiant World, a privately held company, amid concerns over fake invoices, Bloomberg News reported on Friday.
In addition, Intesa Sanpaolo SpA and Jefferies Financial Group Inc.'s Point Bonita fund were reviewing exposures to the company.
Radiant World — which has grown in recent years to become one of the market's main players — said the developments are "categorically untrue".
Separately, Myles Allsop, a London-based mining and metals research analyst at UBS, recently pointed out, "Iron ore fundamentals remain cautious; prices are starting to test the low end of the range."
Allsop questioned whether iron ore will trade above $100/t in 2027. He answered, "Probably not," and added:
Iron ore fundamentals are deteriorating with supply lifting while demand is soft; this has resulted in inventories lifting materially over the last 12 months.
We note cost support levels have lifted with higher diesel/ freight rates but these are set to moderate over the next 12 months if the ceasefire holds & oil/ gas prices normalise.
We expect iron ore prices to average ~$100/t in 2026 and moderate to ~US$95/t in 2027 with the market in a larger surplus and prices stepping down to trade just above the ~90th percentile of the value-in-use curve or ~$90/t (note).
We expect steel scrap to start to displace iron ore demand from 2027 when China's ETS gets tighter (although the scale and pace is opaque and dependent on highly fragmented collection and processing, as well as policy support).
Overnight, Iron ore futures extended their selloff, with benchmark Singapore contracts falling as much as 2.3% to $93.65 a ton, the lowest intraday level since July 2025, while the most-active Dalian contract dropped nearly 3%.
The price action suggests bearish sentiment toward the steelmaking raw material, as weakening Chinese demand, softer steel margins, and increasing supply are pressuring the market.
Tyler Durden Tue, 08/04/2026 - 04:15Authored by Stephen Soukup via American Greatness,
Along, long time ago—27 years, to be exact—my boss (the inimitable Mark Melcher) and I predicted that the European Monetary Union would be the death of the EU. The Euro, we wrote for our clients at a now-defunct big brokerage house, would be a disaster and would destroy everything that the post-war Europeans had spent the previous several decades working to build. Specifically, we wrote:
Psst! You wanna know a secret? The Euro, and the mess it represents, is going to be a social, economic and political catastrophe. Indeed, we think it is probable that the adoption of the Euro will be to 21st century Europe, what the killing of the Archduke Franz Ferdinand was to 20th century Europe; i.e., that point in time when history will record that the unraveling began in earnest.
Exaggeration? Hyperbole? Well, maybe. But maybe not. You see, the problem isn’t, as most critics claim, simply that the “policy makers” from the various “regions,” will fight over economic and monetary policy, and that the economic ignoramuses might win. The problem is that economic ignoramuses are likely to be the only ones at the table. . . .
Starting in about 2010 and running for the next decade or so, every January, in my annual foreign-policy forecast piece, I would lead with a reiteration of that prediction. The collapse of the Euro, I would write, was inevitable. It didn’t matter if it actually happened this year or next year or a decade down the road. It would all eventually crumble, largely because the ignoramuses simply couldn’t help themselves and couldn’t stop doing economically foolish things.
Sometime over the last few years, I quit making that prediction every year for a couple of reasons. First, I quit writing annual forecast pieces as my business model and focus changed. Second, and more to the point, it became unnecessary. The EU had already made itself economically irrelevant. Between its jealously fueled outrage at American tech companies, its obsession with carbon emissions, and its conscious decision to strangle its capital markets through the imposition of overtly political investing mandates, the EU guaranteed that it would become the first modern civilization in history to regress developmentally. It knowingly chose to deindustrialize and to build an economic future that was far bleaker than even its remote economic past. The Euro, I concluded, was pointless.
That’s not to say that I gave up believing that the EU would inevitably collapse. I just gave up wasting my readers’ time by prattling on about it.
Looking back at all of this now, it’s possible I may have been mistaken. No, I wasn’t wrong about the economic stuff. Not only are the ignoramuses in charge, but no one else is even in the discussion. Italy’s Giorgia Meloni is the only Eurozone leader who questions the Union’s climate policies, for example, rightly warning that they will lead to “industrial desertification.” Still, even she officially supports the EU’s position on climate change and carbon emissions more generally, as well as its agreement to the Paris Climate Accords. It’s ignoramuses all the way down.
Nevertheless, it’s probably the case that I was wrong that the economic ignoramuses would be the ones who would precipitate the official end of the EU. Or, more accurately, I suppose, I was wrong that their economically illiterate policies would be the proximate cause of the EU’s collapse. It’s the same ignoramuses, just different policies.
As you likely know, this past week, tens of thousands of “migrants” from Morocco invaded the Spanish city of Ceuta, which is along the coast in North Africa. The images from the enclave were grim: hordes of people, mostly young men, pushing, racing, and fighting to get out of Africa and into Europe (geographical technicalities, be damned). The conditions on the ground were grimmer still: as of yesterday, some 70-plus deaths had been confirmed, while more than a thousand people required medical attention. The whole thing was shocking—or at least it would have been if it hadn’t also been utterly predictable.
For most of the last forty years, Spain has been a hub of primarily North African and Middle Eastern immigration to Europe.
Since the 1980s, Spain has had six major extraordinary regularizations for its migrant populations. Although different in name and details, these “extraordinary regularizations” are essentially broad general amnesties, grants of legal immigration status to those who entered the country illegally. In 2005, under the former Prime Minister José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero (a socialist), Spain granted amnesty to more than half a million illegal immigrants. Earlier this year, under current Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez (also a socialist . . . or worse), the country began the process of yet another regularization, the total size of which is unknown at present but is estimated to be between 500,000 and over 800,000.
Additionally, earlier this summer, the Spanish Supreme Court issued a ruling limiting the ability of the government to return immigrants who arrived in Ceuta and its sister city, Melilla, by sea rather than by land (over a technical “border”).
All things considered, Spain has done everything in its power to encourage as much immigration as possible, and its government has openly conceded this fact, arguing that demographic and workforce realities make mass immigration an absolute necessity. Unsurprisingly, given all of this, the country’s foreign-born population jumped significantly in less than two years, from approximately 18.2% of the total population in 2024 to 20.3% today.
In light of Spain’s immigration policies and in the wake of the Ceuta disaster, over the weekend, several EU nations called for a suspension of Spain’s privileges under the Schengen Agreement, which allows borderless travel within the Schengen region: no passport control, a unified set of regulations, etc. Predictably, Meloni’s Italy was the first to speak up. Deputy PMs Antonio Tajani and Matteo Salvini announced a formal one-month suspension of Italy’s Schengen relations with Spain, closing Italy’s maritime and air entry points to Spain and introducing “targeted and selective” checks on non-EU travelers arriving from that country. France followed suit, reintroducing checks at its land border crossings with Spain. Finland began preparing to reimpose border controls along its own Schengen borders, and its interior minister, Mari Rantanen, offered the sharpest public statement by a government official to date: “Spain’s outer border is also our outer border, and. . . they have failed in their efforts to prevent this incursion, this invasion.” Denmark and Czechia both demanded Spain’s suspension from Schengen, but neither has taken unilateral action on its own.
In response, Pedro Sánchez complained that everyone, everywhere, was overreacting, stating that the rest of Europe was being “selfish, polarising, and unlawful.”
Taken as a whole, this entire episode—starting with Spain’s admitted desire to import as many immigrants as possible and continuing through this weekend’s demands for Spain’s suspension from Schengen—helps clarify some of the broader issues facing the EU.
First, in the age of mass immigration, Schengen shows clearly that the EU itself was a half-baked idea. Interestingly, Schengen did not start as an EU enterprise. It started as a side agreement between a handful of member states: Belgium, France, Germany, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands. It was only in 1999, via the Amsterdam Treaty’s Schengen Protocol, that the “Schengen acquis” (the whole body of Schengen rules and agreements) was formally absorbed into EU law. In 2004, the EU—as opposed to its member states, a key distinction—tried to push a European constitution on its members, including provisions formally mandating Schengen compliance, making the EU “an area without internal frontiers, in which the free movement of persons is ensured. . . .” The following year, French and Dutch voters explicitly rejected the constitution via referenda, which should, by all rights, have been the end of it. The EU being the EU, it decided that it wouldn’t take no for an answer and scaled the constitution back marginally and re-presented it as the Lisbon Treaty, which, among many foolish things, formalized and mandated participation in the Schengen migration policies.
Second, the Euro, the immigration mess, and the EU’s unwillingness to accept the will of the people as definitive confirm Robert Michels’ Iron Law of Oligarchy and show that the EU’s pretensions to “democracy” are rather laughable. Michels was a student of Max Weber, the founder of modern sociology, who sought to deepen his appreciation of socialism by studying the German Social Democratic Party (SPD), the most avowedly democratic, mass-participatory political organization in Europe at the time. He presumed that he would find a functional, egalitarian organization that confirmed all his fantastical priors. Instead, what he discovered was the opposite. He concluded, based on his study, that even organizations explicitly founded on democratic principles—universal participation, elected leadership, accountability to the membership—invariably develop into oligarchies, ruled by a small, self-perpetuating leadership class. It is simply the nature of large organizations. This, then, is Michels’ Iron Law of Oligarchy: “It is organisation that gives birth to the domination of the elected over the electors, of the mandataries over the mandators, of the delegates over the delegators. Who says organisation, says oligarchy.”
The EU is an oligarchy in Michelsian terms. It is governed by a small self-perpetuating ruling class that sees “the people” as impediments to its technocratic program and will do whatever is necessary to advance its agenda, regardless of the will of those people.
Finally, the EU will crumble. All Utopian enterprises eventually do. They must. They can’t help but do so. And while it may not be the monetary union that brings it down, something will. Maybe it will be Schengen and immigration. Maybe it will be something else. Who knows? Whatever the case, it will, eventually, collapse. The real, painful part of Michels’ Iron Law is the inability of oligarchies to reform themselves. They are incapable. What this suggests is that the EU’s response to the Ceuta incident and to Spain’s immigration unilateralism more generally will be to add more layers of centralizing regulation to the already oligarchical system, thereby making a bad problem even worse.
The EU won’t reform because it can’t reform. And so, it will collapse instead.
Tyler Durden Tue, 08/04/2026 - 03:30