war

“Six. Four. Zero. Nine.” A mysterious radio has been repeating numbers in Iran since the start of the war, and no one knows why

by

The short waves They were for decades one of the strangest territories on the radio planet: anyone with a cheap radio could hear metallic voices reciting meaningless numbers, repetitive melodies or absurd phrases that seemed straight out of a spy movie. During the Cold War, thousands of radio amateurs recorded these emissions mysterious things spread all over the world, many of them active for years without anyone officially knowing who was behind them. Some disappeared after the fall of the Soviet bloc. Others, surprisingly, they never left altogether. A voice in the middle of the war. I told the story this morning the financial times and begins shortly after the United States and Israel They will start their attacks against Iran on February 28. Then a sound began to be heard strange transmission on short wave directed at the country: a male voice in Persian that bursts through the static repeating “Tavajjoh” (attention) three times before reciting long sequences of numbers with an almost mechanical cadence. The emissions, detected by radio amateurs and signal trackers, apparently come from somewhere in Western Europe and are repeated twice a day for about an hour and a half. Although its exact origin has not been confirmed, former US intelligence officials consider it very likely that it is a emergency communication system to maintain contact with agents inside Iran at an especially sensitive time, when the war has raised the risks for any informant and the Iranian government has restricted access to the internet and other international communications. What the V32 station really is. The mysterious emission has been identified by observers like V32a call “number station”a type of shortwave transmission historically used by intelligence agencies to send encrypted orders to spies on the ground. The system works in an extremely simple way: the agent only needs a radio and a code book (the so-called one-time pads) to convert the figures heard into understandable messages. The station began broadcasting in Persian exactly coinciding with the start of the war and has already tried to be interfered with through electronic noises which probably come from Iranian jamming systems, but the mysterious voice has been limited to change frequency and continue with his reading of numbers. These types of broadcasts are almost impossible to completely neutralize, because anyone can tune in and because counterintelligence can only act if it detects a spy transcribing the message or if the operators make mistakes. The shadow of the Cold War. The pattern that this station follows is directly reminiscent of one of the most disturbing elements of 20th century espionage: the digital radios that proliferated during the cold war. For decades, services like the CIAthe KGB or the Stasi emitted metallic voices that recited numbers, letters or even melodies followed by coded sequences aimed at agents infiltrating enemy territory. These transmissions could heard around the world and yet its meaning was indecipherable to anyone who did not possess the proper key. Some stations became famous among radio amateurs for its peculiarities (childish voices, strange music or seemingly absurd phrases), but its logic was always the same: to offer an untraceable and extremely secure communication system. The method survived for decades because it was cheap, discreet and resistant even the most sophisticated espionage systems, and although the phenomenon decreased after the end of the Cold War never disappeared full. The Cold War Morse/Voice Generator is a machine that has been used in many well-known number stations Old, but it works. The reason why these stations continue to be useful in the 21st century is precisely their simplicity. If the internet goes down, if phones are tapped, or if digital communications are blocked, a simple shortwave radio still works and allows orders to be transmitted without leaving an electronic trace. For the secret services, it also offers additional benefits: The recipient can listen to the message in seconds, destroy their codebook immediately afterwards, and disappear without leaving any evidence. That simplicity makes even a single person well located can receive instructions capable of causing enormous consequences, from sabotage to more complex intelligence operations. By the way, messages are usually repeated several times to minimize the risk that the agent in question will have to expose himself for too long listening to the transmission. What could the mysterious voice be saying. Although they are all hypotheses and no one outside of their operators knows the real meaning of the sequences, former intelligence officials they point to several plausible possibilities. Emissions could serve to activate agents who remained waiting inside Iran, order evacuations to meeting points or even coordinate operations covered up during the conflict. There is also another more strategic interpretation: that the station is deliberately designed to sow doubts within Iranian counterintelligence, suggesting that there are high-level infiltrators awaiting instructions from the West. In that case, even without transmitting specific orders, the very existence of the station would force Tehran to mobilize cryptographers, researchers and resources to try to decipher a message that may never be understood. Weird, but still alive. Number stations are one of the few times when the normally invisible work of intelligence services becomes audible for anyone with a radio. Although they are much less common today than during the confrontation between blocs of the 20th century, they still there are transmissions regulars associated with countries such as Russia, Poland, Taiwan or North Korea. Some even preserve an almost ceremonial style, such as the Taiwanese station known as New Star Broadcastingwhich begins with a flute melody and ends by wishing “health and happiness” to its listeners before issuing coded numbers intended for agents on extremely sensitive missions. Iran and the difficulty. For the United States, maintaining intelligence networks inside Iran has always been especially complicatedpartly because it does not have an embassy in the country and because the Iranian security apparatus is one of the most vigilant in the world. That forces Western services to retain emergency communication methods capable of working when all else fails. … Read more

The Iran war is making the best possible advertisement for Chinese renewables. And China knows it

by

Oil has skyrocketed again. Brent has crossed 90 dollars, WTI is around 87, and the Strait of Hormuz, through which nearly 20% of the world’s oil transits, has reduced its traffic from 138 ships a day to just two. The most interesting thing here is not the price of crude oil but who wins when that happens. Why is it important. Each shock oil is, for China, a free advertisement on a planetary scale of its energy value proposition. Solar panels, electric cars and batteries do not rise in price when there is a war in the Persian Gulf. Natural gas and gasoline, yes. For countries that have been buying Chinese clean technology for years, this week has been the practical demonstration that they got it right. For those who have not yet done so, it is the best sales argument that China could wish for, and on top of that it has not involved a direct expense. The contrast. The US economy is structurally more vulnerable to the shocks of oil than China. The oil intensity of US GDP, that is, how much oil is needed to generate each dollar of economic activity, is notably higher than that of China, the EU or Russia. When crude oil soars, the blow is felt harder by the American consumer, who fills the tank of his car with gasoline, than by the Chinese consumer, whose fleet of vehicles is already almost 50% electric in new sales. In November 2025, electric cars They exceeded 60% of total sales in China. It is not a country in energy transition: it is a country that has already changed fuel in its largest vehicle fleet. And that is without counting the traffic of motorcycles, all electric for many years in several of its large cities, and with much greater volume than in other countries. Between the lines. China produces more than twice as many solar panels as the world is capable of absorbingand its batteries and electric cars are already reaching Western Europe, the Middle East and Latin America. When oil rises, the economic equation for those exports improves automatically, without your government having to lift a finger. An energy crisis in the Gulf acts as an indirect subsidy to its clean industries: it makes everything China sells more attractive and everything it doesn’t sell more expensive. In figures. The clean energy sector already represents 11.4% of Chinese GDP, according to The analysis published by Carbon Brief last month. Without those industries, China would have grown 3.5% in 2025 instead of the 5% recorded. Electric cars and batteries explain 44% of the economic impact of that sector. China installed 315 GW of solar and 119 GW of wind in 2025, more than the rest of the world combined in both categories. Yes, but. China also imports oil, a lot. It remains one of the world’s largest buyers of crude oil, and the conflict over the Strait of Hormuz complicates its short-term supply. In fact, in recent weeks China has increased its oil imports by almost 16% due to uncertainty. That said, In September it already began to make an unusual collection. What changes the long-term equation is not that China is immune to the shocks oil producers, but each crisis accelerates the internal conversion towards renewables and reinforces the export argument against third countries. It is a temporary pain that finances a structural advantage. Furthermore, this scenario leaves a question in the air: whether the world, by purchasing Chinese clean technology, is ultimately exchanging an energy dependency for a technological dependency. In both the United States and Europe this will end up becoming a question as uncomfortable as it is inevitable. In Xataka | On the roof of the world, China is building the largest solar park on the planet Featured image | Nuno Marques

enter Iran to remove a buried “treasure” of 441 kg that gives meaning to the war

by

Since 1921 when the Italian general Giulio Douhet argued that bombers could win wars by destroying the “vital centers” of a country, air power has fascinated strategists and politicians. However, more than a century of conflict has left a lingering paradox: even the most devastating bombing campaigns in history have, sooner or later, required something much riskier than airplanes to truly decide a war. Especially if, as in almost all wars, one seeks to give meaning to the nonsense. The historical limit. They told it this morning in a special report from the Wall Street Journal. The war started with intense bombing campaign on Iran has once again put on the table an uncomfortable lesson from military history: planes, missiles and bombs can destroy infrastructure, armies and arsenals, but they rarely bring down a regime on their own. Despite the wishes expressed in Washington to bring about political change in Tehran, the military commanders themselves have lowered expectations and they have insisted that the real objective of the campaign is to degrade Iranian offensive capabilities, whether missiles, drones or naval forces, and to wear down its nuclear program. The reason is simple. Even after weeks of attacks, the power structures of the Iranian state they are still intactbacked by military and paramilitary forces that number hundreds of thousands of troops and whose main interest is to maintain the system as it is. Nor does historical precedent help support the idea that strategic bombing alone can decide a war: neither World War II, nor Kosovo, nor Libya. they managed to change governments only from the air. In all cases there were forces on the ground, local insurgencies or invasions that ended up tipping the balance. Members of the US Army using nuclear material detection tools during an exercise No main objective. That air power limit has a immediate strategic consequence: Although the bombings may reduce Iran’s military capacity, they do not guarantee that what gave rise to the conflict will disappear, if there ever was something tangible. The central official concern remains nuclear material that the country has accumulated for years and that represents a latent option to manufacture atomic weapons in a short time. The air campaign can destroy facilities, seal access or delay the program, but it cannot guarantee anything much more complicated: locate, control and neutralize fissile material that already exists. The dilemma is especially serious if the regime survives the conflict or if the Iranian State enters a phase of internal chaos, because that scenario would open the door for some of that material to end up in the hands of regional militias, non-state actors or even black market networks. In other words, war can weaken the adversary without solving the problem that caused it. U.S. Army Soldiers with the 128th Chemical Company, 337th Engineer Battalion conduct reconnaissance in an underground tunnel during an exercise in Lithuania in 2025 The buried “treasure” that gives meaning to war. At the center of this dilemma is a specific piece of information that summarizes all the strategic tension: some 441 kilograms of uranium enriched to 60%, enough to produce material for various nuclear weapons if taken to levels of military purity. This material, stored mainly in underground facilities deeply protected, is the true objective that explains the military campaign. As long as it exists and remains out of control, any aerial victory will be incomplete. The paradox is that this nuclear “treasure” is designed precisely to withstand the type of war that the United States and Israel have been fighting: buried facilities, protected by layers of concrete and rock, designed to survive bombings. Destroying buildings is relatively easy, but destroying or capture nuclear material stored underground is another story entirely. The last mission: enter Iran. Thus we come to a stage which is closer than ever to the rhetoric that the United States has tried to inoculate the planet through a species trailer hollywood. Because an idea has begun to appear that until recently seemed extreme: the possibility of a ground raid of special forces to physically seize Iranian nuclear material or neutralize it in situ. The reasoning is brutally simple. If bombing cannot guarantee control of the enriched uranium, someone will have to go looking for it. They counted the TWZ analysts that, in American strategic circles, there is talk of operations in which elite commandos would penetrate facilities underground, they would secure the material and decide on the spot whether to transport it out of the country or reduce its purity to make it unusable. There is no doubt, it would be a extremely complex operationalmost movie makerwhich would combine special forces, nuclear experts and possibly specialized technical personnel, with the aim of securing material that cannot simply be destroyed with explosives without causing radiological risks. Possible, but almost suicidal. The problem is that such a mission would be one of the military operations riskiest imaginable. The material weighs hundreds of kilos and it is probably stored in armored containers, which would greatly complicate its transportation. The facilities are buried, protected and defended by forces that consider these facilities one of the country’s most important strategic assets. To access them it may be necessary open tunnels or remove tons of earth and concrete as the Iranian army tries to react. The longer the assault force remains on the ground, the more likely the Iranian forces will organize a counterattack with artillery, missiles or ground units. Added to this is the difficulty of infiltrating and extracting a relatively large contingent of operators loaded with specialized equipment in the middle of an open conflict. The logic that moves it. Despite everything, strategic logic pushes towards that direction. If nuclear material is dispersed, hidden, or moved to multiple locations, the problem will multiply and any attempt to neutralize it will be even more difficult. Furthermore, bombing convoys or depots from the air could disperse radioactive material without eliminating the threat. In that context, physically securing uranium becomes the solution to … Read more

Spain is preparing a data center specifically designed to have AI for war. The surprise: it is in Soria

by

More than two thousand years ago, on the hill of Numanciaits inhabitants preferred to resist to the end rather than surrender to the siege of the legions of Publius Cornelius Scipio Aemilianus. That story of defiance against a superior enemy has remained engraved in Soria’s memory as a symbol of resistance. Now, a few kilometers from that place, in the Valcorba industrial estate, the Ministry of Defense wants to build another kind of fortress: a data center named Numant-IA, where defense will no longer be measured in walls or swords, but in servers, algorithms and artificial intelligence. A unique project. While we live a technological-military schism in the USSpain accelerates in a project that precisely combines both sections. The Government has launched Numant-IA, a data center with a notable investment and totally dedicated to offering computing for AI. Here there are, yes, two notes that stand out. The full name of the project will be the Center for Advanced Defense Technological Capabilities, and its investment is part of the Annual Contracting Plan of the Ministry of Defense (Pacdef) from 2026. It includes 7,868 proposals and 156 framework agreements with a combined value of 10,102 million euros. Soria, new technological capital. The data center announced by the Government last September and that already it was outlined months before, it will have its headquarters in Soria. The project will take advantage of a space provided by the Soria City Council and that covers an area of ​​almost four hectares in the Valcorba industrial estate. Lieutenant General José María Millán, director of CESTIC, already warned then that said center will carry out the “incorporation of artificial intelligence systems for the benefit of the Armed Forces.” Military applications. The initial investment, which was 70 million euros, has been increased to almost 130 million euros according to El Heraldo de Soriaand will be assumed by the Ministry of Defense. Its resources will be used for applications that will process classified data in the area of ​​operations and logistics, and military applications will be an integral part of its mission. This project confirms other movements of the Armed Forces such as the development of Gonzalo, that “ChatGPT” for the army which is precisely designed to support this type of tasks safely. Employment and template. About 20 people will be a permanent part of the staff of this center that will operate 24/7 once it is operational. The construction of the data center, the Department of Defense states, will generate “a significant economic and employment impact on the city.” We know when, but we don’t know what. The Ministry of Defense has indicated that the project has a construction period of 24 months, and therefore they hope that it will theoretically be ready by early 2028. What we do not know is what type of infrastructure it will house or what the real capacity of the data center will be. 67.88 million euros will be dedicated to information systems and servers – unspecified, perhaps because they are not yet defined – while construction will be allocated 58.68 million euros and a third item of 1.65 million euros has no specified purpose. Sovereignty and decentralization. Choosing Soria as the location for this data center responds to the decentralization strategy of the Armed Forces. The defense budgets demonstrate this with a distribution of these funds throughout Spain in different projects that try to avoid the danger of excessive centralization of critical centers. The movement also answers to others that we have been seeing for months and that make it clear that in Spain and Europe they are trying to find solutions that allow us to have the highest possible degree of digital sovereignty. Image | Ministry of Defense In Xataka | Spain’s main problem is not weapons, fighters or drones: it is the number of hands it lacks to use them

If an all-out war breaks out between the US and Iran, the ultimate weapon will be desalination plants

by

The whole world holds its breath looking at the same point on the map: the Strait of Hormuz. With markets trembling at the possibility of a barrel of oil breaking the $100 barrier and exports of liquefied natural gas (LNG) paralyzing, the global narrative has turned this conflict into a purely energy crisis. But the reality is much more primary and terrifying. As the analyst Javier Blas warns in a forceful report for Bloombergthe real threat in the military escalation between the coalition led by the United States and Israel against Iran lies not in the oil wells, but in thirst. Oil, Blas points out, is essential for the global economy, but water is simply irreplaceable. If total war breaks out, the definitive weapon will not be energy, but biological survival. This vulnerability is not a secret. As the analyst himself revealsthe American CIA has been warning its policymakers about this matter for decades. In a secret evaluation in the early 1980s —now declassified—, the intelligence agency made it clear that the true “strategic product” (strategic commodity) of the Middle East is not black gold, but drinking water. Unable to engage in a head-on, symmetrical clash with the combined war machine of the United States and Israel, Iran has adopted a survival strategy based on attacking what are known in military jargon as “soft targets.” And they have already started. As detailed in another report by BloombergIran recently attacked a power plant in Fujairah, in the United Arab Emirates (UAE), which is responsible for keeping one of the largest desalination plants in the world in operation. In neighboring Kuwait, debris from an intercepted drone caused a fire at another of its water facilities in Doha West. The offense doesn’t stop there. As we have explained in Xatakathe Saudi Ras Tanura refinery was hit by Iranian drones twice in a single week. The truly alarming thing is that this refinery is only 80 kilometers from Ras Al Khairthe largest hybrid desalination complex on the planet. The risk is physical and mathematical: attacks on the port of Jebel Ali in Dubai fell just 20 kilometers from a critical complex with 43 desalination units, according to Michael Christopher Low in The Conversation. The level of aggressiveness is overwhelming the region. The UAE have already faced more than 800 missile and drone attacks (exceeding in volume those received by Israel). Although most are intercepted, the impacts have caused fires in the Burj Al Arab and have damaged data centers of Amazon Web Services (AWS) in UAE and Bahrain. This last point is critical: As experts warn Chosun Dailythese data centers digitally manage the energy and water distribution network; A digital blackout is equivalent to a physical power outage. Survival hangs by a thread for 72 hours The region’s monarchies are “saltwater kingdoms,” How do you define them? The Conversation. Eight of the ten largest desalination plants in the world are in the Arabian Peninsula, concentrating 60% of global capacity. The population’s dependence on this technology, according to data from W.G.I. Worldis absolute: Kuwait: 90% of its drinking water comes from desalination. Oman: 86%. Saudi Arabia: 70%. United Arab Emirates: 42% (almost 100% in metropolises like Dubai). If Iran decides to target these plants, human collapse would be devastating. A great report of House of Saudbased on a 2008 US diplomatic cable leaked by WikiLeaksreveals a terrifying scenario about Riyadh. The Saudi capital, with more than 8 million inhabitants, receives more than 90% of its drinking water from the Jubail plant through a single 500 kilometer pipeline. The report is blunt: if the plant or its pipeline were destroyed, “Riyadh would have to be evacuated within a week.” There is not even room to improvise. As an analysis in Iran InternationalQatar admitted that, in a scenario of massive water pollution, the country estimated to run out of drinking water in just three days, which forced them to build 15 giant emergency reservoirs. However, as researcher Bailey Schwab points out in WGI Worldwater cannot be politically rationed for long in cities that depend on the State to survive extreme temperatures. The energy-water nexus: the asymmetric calculation The system’s vulnerability is asymmetric and deeply technical. As explained by the analysis of House of Sauddesalination plants consume massive amounts of electricity (they represent almost 6% of total consumption in Saudi Arabia) and are co-located with mega power plants. If a missile takes down the power plant, the water supply dies instantly with it. Additionally, there is an unsustainable gap in recovery times. While an oil refinery can restore part of its production in a couple of weeks (as happened after the attack on Abqaiq in 2019), as Bailey Schwab warns, the components of a reverse osmosis plant are extremely high-precision parts that, if destroyed, would take months to replace. And defending this is economically unsustainable. Iran is using Shahed-136 droneswhich cost between $15,000 and $50,000 per unit. Opposite, the monumental Ras Al Khair plant cost 7.2 billion dollars and sits just 250 kilometers from the Iranian coast. It is a trivial flight for drones that have a range of 2,500 kilometers. As if that were not enough, this vulnerability drags food security down with it. There is one fact that goes unnoticed in the economic press: 70% of food imports of the GCC transits through the Strait of Hormuz. Saudi Arabia imports almost 80% of its food (wheat, corn and barley) by sea. With marine insurers canceling war risk policies for merchant ships, Gulf countries not only face dying of thirst, but also food isolation. The paradox: Iran, a country drowned by its own drought If the situation in the Gulf is critical, that of the aggressor country is equally desperate, although for different reasons. An analysis by Fred Pearce in Yale Environment 360 (Yale E360) details that Iran faces its own “water bankruptcy.” The crisis has reached such a point that Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian warned last November that the country “has no choice” but to … Read more

Chip War is Xataka Xtra’s newsletter about the technological battle of our time: semiconductors

by

‘Chip War’ is one of the newsletters exclusives included in Xataka Xtrathe Xataka subscription plan. We send it every Monday and it is part of a benefits plan that includes access to other newsletters, a consultation with editors and raffles and discounts exclusive for subscribers. The first draw, a 75″ TV. The semiconductor industry is not just technology. It is geopolitics, economics and industrial strategy condensed into objects of a few nanometers. The decisions made today by TSMC, Intel, ASML, Samsung or SK Hynix (or the governments that support them) will determine which countries lead the next decade and under what conditions. Every Monday we analyze what is happening in that race: the conflicts between the United States and China, the movements of large factories, the subsidies that are changing the geography of production or the technological bets that can change who is in charge in the sector. Without rush and with context. The goal is not to tell you the news, but to help you understand why it matters. Why does it matter so much? Do you want an example? In our Substack we share the first edition for free. Other Xataka Xtra newsletters Next X (biweekly, every other Thursday): analysis of the trends in technology and science that are changing the present and will define the future: AI, quantum computing, biotechnology, space exploration. Context and perspective on where we are going and why it matters. B-sides (weekly, every Saturday): five curious and fascinating readings each week. Strange, counterintuitive or unexpected stories that we find on the Internet and that deserve your attention. From industrial accidents that changed the world to surprising scientific research or absurdities of late capitalism. Featured image | Xataka

the fear of living in 1973 again because of the war in Iran

by

Just enter the tracking platform Marine Traffic to understand the magnitude of the paralysis. Dozens of red dots, representing colossal merchant ships, crowd motionless off the coasts of Oman and the United Arab Emirates. The steel giants do not dare to cross a strip of water that, at its narrowest point, barely measures 33 kilometers. The Strait of Hormuz It is the main energy artery of the planet. A fifth of the world’s oil – some 20.9 million barrels per day – and a vital percentage of global liquefied natural gas (LNG) sail through its waters daily. Today, that step is de facto blocked. Half a century later, an atavistic terror has awakened in Western capitals: the fear of reliving the energy collapse and rampant inflation of 1973. The spark that set the markets on fire jumped after a war escalation unprecedented in the Middle East, triggered by the attacks by the United States and Israel that culminated in the assassination of the Iranian supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Tehran’s response has not been long in coming: a rain of drones and missiles on American allies and trade routes that has caused a blockade de facto of the Strait of Hormuz. The crisis broke out after an unprecedented escalation of war in the Middle East. The offensive by the United States and Israel (named “Operation Epic Fury”), which culminated in the assassination of the Iranian supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, sparked a quick response from Tehran: a rain of drones and missiles on American allies and strategic infrastructure in the Gulf. The physical consequences have been immediate. An Iranian drone attack forced to paralyze the Ras Laffan facilities in Qatar, the largest LNG export plant in the world, and forced Saudi Arabia to temporarily close units of its gigantic Ras Tanura refinery. The violence has directly reached the water: the British agency UKMTO reported the attack on an oil tanker near Oman, leaving several injured, and the energy expert Javier Blas warned of the explosion of another ship anchored off the coast of Kuwait, causing an oil spill into the sea. Given this panorama, transport giants such as Maersk or MSC They have ordered their fleets seek refuge. The panic has rewritten logistics rates: the cost of leasing a supertanker (VLCC) has shot up by 600%, hovering around $200,000 a day, while insurers have increased war risk premiums by up to 50%, as Alex Longley warns in Bloomberg. The echoes of the past are terrifying. Saul Kavonic, head of energy research at MST Marquee, warns in Fortune that a prolonged closure of Hormuz could have an impact “three times the scale of the energy crisis we saw in the 1970s.” What could happen if the tanks overflow The problem with ships not sailing is not only that the oil does not reach its destination, it is that it accumulates at the point of origin. The industry is facing a logistical collapse due to lack of physical storage. Iraq has been the first major victim of this logistical collapse. As you have detailed OilPricethe country has had to begin to turn off the tap on gigantic fields such as Rumaila (the largest in the world), withdrawing about 1.5 million barrels a day from the market, a figure that could double if the crisis persists. According to sources from the commercial sector in Financial TimesIf the blockade continues, Kuwait will be the next to give up in a matter of days, followed by the United Arab Emirates. Saudi Arabia, thanks to its immense storage capacity, could last between two and four weeks before being forced to cut its extraction. Financial markets reflect absolute short-term stress. As analyst John Kemp’s charts illustrateBrent crude oil futures have entered a backwardation extreme, with a difference of almost 11 dollars per barrel between short- and long-term contracts, placing it in the 98th-99th percentile in history. This signals an acute and immediate shortage of barrels, especially for refiners in Asia, which have already begun to cut back on operations. If this funnel continues for three months, the unwritten rule of firms like Goldman Sachs suggests that crude oil could become more expensive by an additional $40, turning the barrier of $100 per barrel in the new normal. The differences with 1973 Despite the drama and the fact that a barrel quickly exceeded $80, the macroeconomic scenario is not a carbon copy of the Arab embargo. Global resilience has changed: The new oil sheriff: Today, the US economy depends much less on crude oil to generate wealth (barely 0.4% of GDP compared to 1.5% in 1979). Furthermore, the American country is now the world’s largest producer of oil, which protects it from supply shocks, as pointed out Fortune. The “Myopia of Hormuz”: Mukesh Sahdev, Chief Analyst at XAnalysts, points in Fortune that the market is overreacting. The main objective of the US (neutralizing the Iranian leadership) has already been met, and Donald Trump himself has suggested that the military campaign could be short, which would limit the long-term impact. Alternative routes to rescue: Saudi Arabia has a colossal lifeline. Your pipeline East-Westwhich connects the eastern fields with the Red Sea, has the capacity to pump about 7 million barrels per day, bypassing Hormuz. There are already signs that Riyadh is redirecting flows this way, as Blas explains. For its part, Iraq has managed to resume a modest flow of 50,000 barrels per day to Türkiye after a brief pause, as the analyst collects Bachar El-Halabi. Safety mattresses: Global onshore reserves reach 2 billion barrels, enough to weather the initial storm. For its part, the Trump Administration has tried to calm the markets by promising Navy naval escorts and state insurance of up to $1 billion per ship through the International Development Finance Corporation (DFC). However, this is not a magic solution. As they warn in the sectorcaptains are the ones who decide to set sail, and sailing surrounded by US military destroyers often makes them more attractive … Read more

The Iran war has thrown a rug over Russia

by

In almost every modern war there is an unexpected object that ends up symbolizing the conflict. In the First World War were the trenchesin the Second the tanksand in Ukraine many thought that this role would be filled the drones. However, another much less sophisticated tool has appeared on the front that has become just as essential: a construction machine capable of moving tons of earth in a few hours and completely changing the way of surviving on the battlefield. Also a sign of the emergency situation. The shield that supports Ukraine. Since the start of the full-scale Russian invasion in 2022, Ukraine’s military survival has largely depended on an outer shield: the constant flow of weapons, technology and financing from from the United States and Europe. Patriot anti-aircraft systems, interceptor missiles, advanced drones and Western munitions allowed kyiv to resist to a much larger enemy and regain territory in the early stages of the war. Over time, this cooperation even evolved into a new industrial model in which European companies began manufacturing weapons based on Ukrainian technology, creating a production network that combined battlefield innovation with the industrial capacity of Western allies. Iran threatens the shield. That support system is now beginning to show cracks for an unexpected reason: open war between the United States, Israel and Iran. The new front in the Middle East has forced Washington to concentrate resources military, missiles and strategic attention in another crisis, generating fear in Europe and kyiv that Ukraine will be left in the background. They remembered in the Wall Street Journal that the same interceptors, munitions and systems that Ukraine needs to defend itself against Russian bombing are now being used in operations against Iran, and if the conflict drags on, the United States could be forced to prioritize replacement of their own arsenals rather than continue supplying kyiv. Change of priorities. The risk is not only military, but political. With the White House focused on the Middle East, European diplomats they fear that the momentum to maintain pressure on Russia will be diluted in a conflict that has already entered its fifth year. In fact, Washington had long reducing your involvement directly and pressing to find a negotiated solution, but a prolonged conflict with Iran could absorb even more resourcesattention and industrial capacity. For Ukraine, that scenario would mean confronting Russia with fewer defensive missiles, fewer components for its military industry, and a flow of aid. increasingly uncertain. Ukrainian soldier operating an excavator near the front Objective: dig. On the battlefield, this potential shortage is translating into increasingly rudimentary decisions. Drones dominate modern combat, but their effectiveness depends on something much older: the excavated ground. Defensive positions have become underground networks of trenches, shelters and tunnels designed to survive constant surveillance by drones, artillery and guided bombs. In an open field where any movement can be detected within minutes, survival depends on staying hidden underground and operate from fortified positions that withstand constant attacks. Excavators in front. In this regard, they had in a Forbes report that the arrival of the bulldozers is also the most fearsome signal for Ukraine, because the war in Iran is destroying the shield that prevented the invasion to Russia. In a conflict dominated by advanced technology, the most urgent element in many brigades is not a new weapons system, but construction machinery Able to dig through defenses quickly. Each battalion tries to achieve at least one excavator to build deep trenches, covered shelters and obstacle networks that channel Russian attacks into controlled fire zones. These machines replace weeks of manual work and allow us to build defenses that can save dozens of lives. Modern warfare underground. If you will also, the evolution of combat has turned fortifications into a complex infrastructure that integrates technology, electrical cables, charging stations and shelters for drones and ground robots. However, it all starts with the same basic task: move earth before the next attack comes. On a front where Russia launches hundreds of drones and missiles in a single night and where gliding bombs seek to breach defensive lines, it turns out that the speed of digging can decide whether a position survives or disappears. and that reality sums up the moment that Ukraine is experiencing: a modern war sustained by drones and algorithms, but whose last line of defense depends on what happens in another conflict…and in a yellow machine digging mud in the middle of the front. Image | Tonya Levchuk In Xataka | Shahed drones are spreading terror in the Gulf. Ukraine has offered the solution and the price to pay has a name In Xataka | The Russian military is so desperate for Internet access that Ukraine has used it to spring a death trap.

The war in Iran is going to repeat a suicidal scenario from 1980. But with drones and kamikaze boats in the most fearsome point on the planet

by

At first glance it is just a strip of water between Iran and the Arabian Peninsula, but its importance it’s huge. The Strait of Hormuz is one of the few places on the planet where global trade it literally depends of a maritime corridor just a few kilometers wide. Every day dozens of supertankers and monster container ships pass through it, connecting the Middle East. with the rest of the planeta constant choreography that moves energy, raw materials and essential products on a global scale. Therefore, when something happens there, the effect is greatly felt. beyond the Gulf. The most dangerous bottleneck on the planet. As we said, the Strait of Hormuz is one of the most critical geographical points of the world economic system and also one of the most vulnerable. At its narrowest point it barely reaches 33 kilometers wide and thousands of ships pass through it every month connecting the Persian Gulf with the rest of the planet. Through this maritime strip it circulates around a fifth of oil that is traded in the world, large volumes of liquefied natural gas and an essential part of the industrial raw materials that sustain the global economy. But its importance goes beyond energy: it is also a key artery for trade in fertilizers and chemicals that end up directly influencing food production. When this route is interrupted, not only are the energy markets altered, the entire chain that connects agricultural fields, the chemical industry and supermarkets is shaken. War stops traffic. The military escalation between the United States, Israel and Iran has brought that critical point to the brink of a historic crisis. Attacks on oil tankers and commercial vessels, along with direct warnings from Tehran to shipping companies, have caused traffic through the strait to reduce. almost to zero in matter of days. Several vessels have been hit by projectiles or dronessome energy facilities in Gulf countries have been attacked and oil prices have reacted immediately with strong rises. Shipping companies and insurers have begun to cancel policies or dramatically raise war insurance costs, as some ships attempt to cross the zone with their location systems turned off to reduce the probability of being identified as a target. Washington’s response and the convoys. Faced with the risk that the global energy flow will be blocked, the United States has raised an extraordinary measure: escort oil tankers and commercial vessels with the US Navy and also offer financial guarantees and political insurance to reassure shipping companies. The idea seeks to avoid a global energy shock, but it implies send warships directly to the most dangerous area of ​​the Gulf. Organizing maritime convoys is a complex operation that requires destroyers, aircraft and military resources that could not be used in other missions. Furthermore, even with an escort, experts remember that ships would continue to navigate within an extremely hostile space, where reaction times to attacks can be reduced to minutes. The ghost of the eighties. I was counting this morning the financial times that the situation inevitably reminds one of the most tense episodes of the Cold War in the Middle East: the so-called “tanker war” which developed during the conflict between Iran and Iraq in the 1980s. So both countries They systematically attacked maritime traffic in the Gulf with missiles, naval mines and air strikes. A kamikaze battle involving more than four hundred commercial ships were damaged or sunk and the United States deployed dozens of ships to escort convoys and protect oil tankers. Still, the risk it was huge: American frigates were severely damaged by mines and missiles and dozens of sailors were killed. That crisis demonstrated the extent to which a regional conflict could put global trade in check. The difference: drones and kamikaze boats. The war in Iran is about to end repeat the scenario suicide bombing of 1980, but with a difference: now there are drones and kamikaze boats at the most fearsome point for the planet. From then until now the Iranian arsenal has evolved radically and today it combines long-range anti-ship missiles, thousands of cruise shellsarmed drones, diesel submarines, modern naval mines and fast vessels capable of swarming attacks. Added to this are unmanned surface vehicles, small ships loaded with explosives that hit the hulls of ships at the waterline, causing flooding in the engine room and rapid sinking. In a strait “so narrow” and close to the Iranian coast, these systems offer Tehran a obvious tactical advantage. An economic weapon to paralyze everything. Even without completely blocking the passage, the simple risk of attacks can paralyze maritime traffic. Recent history of the red seawhere attacks by militias allied with Iran diverted trade routes for months, shows that it only takes a few incidents to skyrocket shipping costs and force shipping companies to look for much longer alternative routes. In Hormuz the effect would be much greater because it is of the natural exit of the energy production of the entire Gulf. Tanker freight rates have already skyrocketed and any sign of mines or new attacks could double shipping prices again. A global pulse with unpredictable consequences. Close Hormuz also has a cost for Iranwhose economy depends largely on exporting its own oil, especially to China. However, the strategic logic of the conflict could push Tehran to use the strait as an economic lever to pressure Washington and its allies. In any case, the longer the war continues, the greater the temptation on both sides to use energy as a weapon. In that scenario, the world could face a perfect storm: skyrocketing oil, scarce fertilizers and more expensive food. All concentrated in a strait just a few kilometers wide that once again becomes the most fragile point in the global economic system. Image | eutrophication&hypoxiaNZ Defense Force, National Museum of the US Navy In Xataka | Shahed drones are spreading terror in the Gulf. Ukraine has offered the solution, and the price to pay has a name In Xataka | Spain has … Read more

In the Iraq War, Spain was left “alone” supporting the United States. 23 years later, she has been left alone refusing to help him

by

If a Spaniard from March 2003 could take a look at the press today (03/04/2026) it is most likely that he would not understand anything. And not because of the lack of context, references or the (logical) change of political leaders. Probably what would catch your attention is the 180º turn in the geopolitical chessboard that concerns the US and Europe. Let’s remember. In 2003 José María Aznar he posed smiling together with George W. Bush and Tony Blair to confirm itself as one of the great supporters of the US in the Iraq war. Today the opposite happens. Spain has become almost the loose European verse for his rejection of Trump’s offensive in Iran. It seems like a simple historical curiosity, but it says a lot about how Europe, the US and their relationship have changed over the last two decades. Trump’s anger. This is not the first time that Donald Trump publicly displayed his lack of harmony with Moncloa. In October, in full tug-of-war over the percentage of GDP that should be allocated to defense, the Republican came to suggest that Spain should be “expelled” from NATO. Rarely, however, has the US leader spoken out with the emphatic (and angry) expression he used yesterday when talking about the negative of Pedro Sánchez’s Government to have the US army use the Morón and Rota bases to attack Iran. “Spain has been terrible”. In the threatening tone that has become the hallmark of his second term, Trump made it clear that he does not take no for an answer. “Spain has been terrible,” started . “In fact I have told Scott (Bressent, Treasury Secretary) to cut all relations with her. Spain said we cannot use their bases. We could if we wanted to. Nobody is going to tell us no. But we don’t have to. They have been unfriendly.” In case there were any doubts, the Republican threatened with cutting “everything that has to do with Spain” and pronounced the cursed word: “Embargo.” He didn’t go much further, but neither that nor the fact that other previous announcements have fallen on deaf ears has prevented his words from causing an earthquake. Especially among the sectors that would have it worst if Washington decided to move forward and “cut off trade” with Spain, an otherwise complex scenario since trade policy does not depend on Madrid, but on the European Union. “No to war”. The problem is not only that Spain has refused to allow the US to use the bases in Rota and Morón to bomb Iran. Probably what has raised the most blisters in Washington is that Sánchez has clearly positioned himself against the actions of the US and Israel in the Middle East. did it yesterday and he has done it again this morning with a deliberately emphatic message: “Spain’s position is the same as in Ukraine or Gaza. No to war.” During his speech, Sánchez even recalled the Iraq war, which left (he denounced) “a more insecure world.” His position also has an internal reading: the ‘no to war’ of 2003 was a shock for the PSOE. One club, three positions. Sánchez’s position is not only important for what he says, but also for where and especially when he says it. His speech clashes with that of other European leaders who have been much more understanding of the US and Israeli attacks on Iran. In fact, just a few days ago their counterparts from France, the United Kingdom and Germany they have closed ranks with Trump. On Sunday the three powers (E3) released a statement in which they demanded that Tehran stop its “attacks” and they advanced their willingness to coordinate with the United States. “We will take measures to defend our interests and those of our allies in the region, potentially with necessary and proportionate defensive actions to destroy Iran’s ability to fire missiles and drones,” states the joint writing by Emmanuel Macron, Keir Starmer and Friedrich Merz. It should be remembered that on Sunday a French naval base in Abu Dhabi suffered an attack with drones and on Monday another drone impact against the British RAF facilities in Cyprus. Tehran has also hit bases with German troops. Madrid’s position thus clearly differs from that of Paris, London and Berlin. Also from that of the community club, which has opted for a more ambiguous position. Although the European Commission has not been slow to guarantee its “full” solidarity with its members in a veiled support for Spain in the face of Trump’s threats, the truth is that Brussels maintains a very different tone from that of Sánchez. On Monday Von der Leyen claimed that “diplomacy” is “the only solution” to the open crisis in Iran and, although he condemned Tehran’s attacks on Middle Eastern neighbors, he did not mention the bombings launched by the US and Israel. Just 23 years later… This morning Sánchez not only insisted on his “no to war.” He also wanted draw a parallel with what happened in 2003 when the Government of Spain, then headed by Aznar, decided to clearly support the US deployment in Iraq, distancing of its European partners. “The world has been here before. 23 years ago another US administration led us to an unjust war. The Iraq war generated a drastic increase in terrorism, a serious immigration and economic crisis. That was the gift of the Azores trio, a more insecure world and a worse life,” Sánchez claimed. Ironies of history, the socialist refers to the famous photo taken just 23 years ago, in March 2003, in the Azores and in which Bush, Blair and Aznar pose smiling. Have things changed that much? The truth is that yes. And not only because where Bush, Blair and Aznar sat 23 years ago, today Trump, Starmer and Sánchez sit (respectively). The most relevant change affects the roles and dealings with Washington. In 2003, the invasion of Iraq caused a fracture of Europe into two blocks well differentiated. One, against … Read more

Log In

Forgot password?

Forgot password?

Enter your account data and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Your password reset link appears to be invalid or expired.

Log in

Privacy Policy

Add to Collection

No Collections

Here you'll find all collections you've created before.