By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Following an Iranian drone attack on a cargo ship in the Strait of Hormuz, the US military launched strikes on Iranian missile and drone storage facilities and coastal radar positions. This action, described by US Central Command as a “powerful response” to “unwarranted aggression,” came after President Trump accused Iran of a “foolish violation” of their recent truce. The drone attack, which caused no casualties, prompted the planned evacuation of over 11,000 sailors from the region, underscoring the vital importance of this international trade corridor.
Read the original article here
The US has conducted strikes on Iran in retaliation for an attack on a cargo ship, reigniting tensions in the region. This development comes as markets close, a timing that has become a recurring pattern, leading to suspicions of market manipulation. Many are questioning if this is the new normal, a cycle of conflict and instability that will persist until leadership changes. The swiftness with which these retaliatory actions follow, particularly right after market hours, fuels cynicism about the integrity of financial dealings and the broader political landscape.
There’s a prevailing sentiment that this isn’t a genuine pursuit of peace, but rather a series of maneuvers that benefit a select few. The term “Weekend War” has emerged to describe these events, often unfolding over a weekend, suggesting a deliberate scheduling that allows for certain outcomes before the start of the trading week. The phrase “you’re gonna be sick of winning so much,” often associated with a particular political figure, now rings hollow in the face of escalating conflict and economic uncertainty. The consistent timing of these events – “right after market closes” – is seen as a clear indicator of something more than just geopolitical necessity at play.
The narrative emerging is one of deep-seated corruption, where decisions seem to be made to benefit oligarchs and those in power, potentially allowing them to offload stock before the general public catches wind. The current government, in this view, is merely a façade for a kleptocracy, where personal enrichment takes precedence over national well-being. The focus is on how this cycle of conflict and perceived insider dealings are actively depleting retirement funds and 401(k)s, leaving ordinary citizens vulnerable. The celebratory atmosphere of holidays like the Fourth of July is overshadowed by a sense of being exploited.
This situation is reminiscent of Orwellian doublespeak, where the language of peace is used to mask actions that lead to war. The concept of a “truce” is questioned, especially when it appears to coincide with or precede further escalations, and this is particularly relevant in the lead-up to elections. The prediction is that by election time, the public will face soaring gas prices and increased costs for basic necessities, directly attributed to attempts to control the news cycle and distract from other pressing issues. The hope for a return to normalcy or the adoption of progressive policies seems dim when faced with such persistent patterns of conflict and what is perceived as blatant corruption.
The very definition of “peace talks” appears to have been redefined, now seemingly involving missile strikes, bombings, and overt threats on social media. This warped understanding of diplomacy leaves many feeling bewildered and resigned. The immediate practical concerns, like a near-empty gas tank, highlight the tangible impact of these geopolitical maneuvers on everyday life, especially as oil prices surge towards $100 a barrel. The notion of a “peace deal” announced on a Sunday, just before the market opens, is met with deep skepticism, as it’s viewed as another opportunity for those in the know to profit.
The cycle of events is so predictable that many anticipate a “peace agreement” to be announced as early as Sunday, mirroring a pattern that has become all too familiar. Frustration and anger are palpable, directed at the government, the military-industrial complex, and the corporations that allegedly benefit from these conflicts. The declaration of peace, when it comes, is often met with immediate doubt, especially when followed by further military action. The idea of “free red light therapy” is a sarcastic jab at the supposed positive outcomes that are promised but never materialize.
The question of what “episode” of this ongoing saga is being witnessed arises, as the repetition is astounding. The Epstein files, a topic that has been a focal point for some seeking transparency, are seen as deliberately overshadowed by these new conflicts. A grim question is raised about the number of civilian lives lost in these strikes, emphasizing the human cost of these actions. The cyclical nature of oil prices, from low to high, is directly linked to political actions and alleged insider trading.
The feeling of having just filled up a gas tank only to see prices jump significantly is a stark reminder of the financial consequences. The complexity of these “4-D chess” moves leaves many feeling lost and exploited. The fear of attacks on US soil, particularly around significant national holidays like the Fourth of July, adds another layer of anxiety to an already tense situation. The recurring theme of market manipulation and the anticipation of impending “historic peace deals” being followed by further conflict underscores a deep distrust.
The notion of insider trading is openly discussed, with regret expressed for not being able to act on the predictable patterns of market shifts following geopolitical events. The hope for profiting from the next “peace deal” before more bombs drop highlights a bleak outlook on financial markets and their connection to war. The effectiveness of any ceasefire is openly mocked, as is the rhetoric surrounding it, especially when the same phrases are repeated with no genuine change. The analogy of a fireman, running into danger for little reward, is used to critique the perceived sacrifices of ordinary citizens powering a system that seems to benefit only a few.
The feeling that nothing is real, and that current events are merely reposts of past conflicts, points to a profound sense of disillusionment. The shame and frustration of working within a system perceived as a “clown show” are palpable. The possibility of these events being orchestrated, perhaps by foreign actors like Mossad, to serve specific political agendas, like influencing peace deals, is also raised. The predictability of Iran responding with “cardboard missile launchers” just as US markets close is a cynical commentary on the staged nature of these confrontations.
The question of how many weeks remain until global supplies are impacted highlights a growing concern about the broader economic ramifications. The promise of social media messages to boost the market before Monday’s opening is seen as a predictable tactic to manipulate sentiment. The declaration that “war is back on the menu” is a blunt acknowledgment of the ongoing cycle, leaving many feeling utterly exhausted by the country’s trajectory.