IMAGES: Oil Industries And Big Tech Cloud Imagery, A Data Center On Fire

Big Tech & Big Oil must co-operate and Susie Wiles may give a hand to make such round table reality and make it within the Republican Party and the Trump Administration. A Ribbentrop-Molotov… pardon, a Musk-Woods Iron Pact, or better Musk,Thiel,Amodei,Zuckerberg,Altman-Woods,Wirth Pact. Pact of aggression not of desistance. To be clear: aggression against the enemies of technology, modernity and humanity.

Data Centers have been blown up during both wars, Iran and Ukraine, oil refineries have been blown up: the energy structures are visibly targeted. The price of diesel has become a human and political problem, that’s growing bigger, they say.

Plus the carnage:

And so the slaughter continues … Time for Zelensky to go

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) October 15, 2026

BUT… RIGHT NOW… The Republican Party controls CIA, FBI, DNI and Pentagon and State Department though things are not going very well: I praise Trump and Musk and obviously also Putin for the Russia Diesel Deal and for switching off Starlink to Zelensky and I praise Rubio for being honest about who really started the war.

We must plough on with this Peace & Energy Project I think Susie Wiles has to gather Big Tech CEOs and Big Oil CEOs and start within the Administration a new strategy also of putting new men greenlighted by Musk and Thiel and Woods and Wirth to stop the bombings and protect the energy structures worldwide and co-operate Big Tech with Big Oil to produce the best and safest energy possible, and abundant. Co-operating with the Republican Party to select and greenlight and getting elected the best candidates for Congress and White House and Administration.

The GOP has to contain this. DNI, FBI, CIA, Pentagon, State Department must implement this plan also with people selected by Big Tech and Big Oil CEOs. For the purpose, since… we got a purpose.

Because the war is, according to many, a war against energy masked as something else: I frankly can’t believe that if the GOP, Big Tech and Big Oil form a new Political Techno Trinity any Democrat and Net Zero and Gay Club And Open Border and “F*ck Columbus Style” Slut Celebrity too fat for her outfit, with their Aztec Royals may ever win. They won’t win if we do this Trinity, but you must do it, I can only write for now otherwise I’d offer you a coffe and I’d organise the round table in the place of Susie Wiles. Susie is the gatekeeper and she’s the Corporation Girl, she has to organise it.

The Intentional Dismantling of Global Energy

15 Oct 2026, 19:59

DONALD TRUMP: It’s a golden age of America, and the Iran war will end very soon. It’s going to end very soon, as soon as I want it to end, it’ll end. But it’s going to end very soon, they’ll never have a nuclear weapon, and oil prices will drop like a rock.

CHRIS MARTENSON: Wait a minute, did he really just say, this war ends when I want it to end? So can we interpret, I guess he doesn’t want the war to end. He’s been dragging it along, you know, a great cost to economies, to lives, to all kinds of things. So that’s not an awesome thing to say. But like you said, there’s only one thing he can do that ends this war, and that’s walk away. You just drop the mic and head out of the region, and things will sort themselves out pretty quickly, I would imagine. And that would be one thing he could do. But if he goes militarily, as you’re suggesting, Iran’s been very clear about this. And one thing about both the Houthis and the Iranians, they say they’re going to do something, tends to happen, right? You know, the Houthis said, hey, if you bomb our oil depot in Sana’a, we’re going to hit the Saudi Aramco headquarters, and they did. So take it for what it will, but they say they’re going to do something, it happens. So what has Iran told us? They said, hey, if you hit us, you hit us hard, here’s our target list. And it includes the few remaining undamaged oil energy infrastructures that remain in countries that it considers maybe supportive of the United States efforts. And that would include Saudi Arabia. And at this point, just like to point out that Saudi Arabia was the number one oil exporter in the whole world. Russia was number two. I’m using the past tense was because neither of them are able to sort of really keep up with their volumes because of all the damage that’s been happening in large measure because of either direct US action or implicit action where, you know, we’re helping the Ukrainians out and everybody knows it, right? So you look at that, Daniel, sooner or later, if you just see people doing the same thing over and over again, you have to assume that that’s what they mean to do, right? So Trump just said, I’ve been keeping this war alive and it ends when I want it to end. Well, he doesn’t want it to end. Why not? What’s he looking for? It’s coming, there’s a troubling conclusion in there, which is this is an intentional takedown of the world’s energy infrastructure and possibly food infrastructure. I can’t pin that all on Trump. I have to suggest that maybe there’s other forces at work here that he’s a part of, but somebody somewhere wants these things to be happening because they’re happening. Otherwise, different things would be happening, I guess.

DANIEL DAVIS: Yeah, and I’m actually going to get to that in just a second, but I want to get a running head start. Let’s look at what the Iranians have said and what the Iranians have done. This new analysis by Reuters has done some satellite imagery analysis and said Iran’s missiles and drones have hit Gulf infrastructure sites at least 135 times, causing cascading failures that Gulf states have concealed. Despite repeated official statements that the damage comes from debris, Reuters has found that equipment struck was, time and again, exactly what mattered the most. And as we’ve been showing for actually a couple of months here, Iran has demonstrated that they have pinpoint accuracy on our bases, but also now, according to Reuters, on industrial and business aspects, whatever they’re shooting at, they’re going to hit. So if President Trump goes back in and hits something, we can have a very high level of confidence that they’re going to do more of that, and that target list that you mentioned will be executed. What would that result in in the region if Iran does that?

CHRIS MARTENSON: We would see almost immediately a drop to zero, again, of oil being exported out through the Strait of Hormuz. We’d probably see a zeroing out of the east-west pipeline in Saudi Arabia, which, by the way, is damaged. It’s not back at full capacity. I don’t care what Saudi Arabia sort of hints at. There’s no chance of that. And we would see probably a complete, we’d see an ignition of something going on in the whole region. I don’t know what to make of it, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia and others got together and said, well, we’re going to have a mutual defense pact. If attacked, what does that mean? Who’s actually attacking who at this point in time? Saudi Arabia, it seems like they’re kind of on the ropes at this point in time. We’ve had reports that Mohammed bin Salman and his crew are in protective custody. They’re in hiding with trusted close advisors. It’s a tinder box over there. This could just really go up. So if the United States again attacks hard, does something, tries to use those MOAB bombs or something worse, if they do that, I would predict that we would see the whole region just kind of go up in flames at that point. And we would see oil drop back to zero. We’d lose about 20% of total world output of oil. You carry that on long enough, you get a global economic catastrophe out of that. And that would be unfortunate. I don’t even have the right words for this. This is going to be a humanitarian disaster if we do that.

DANIEL DAVIS: Yeah. And here’s the thing, Chris, and it’s probably becoming evident even to our audiences, we’re talking here. You’ve mentioned a number of things in Europe, in the United States, in the Middle East, that a lot of these things just like, how can they have gotten so many dumb people together? And so the normal thing for a regular human being is to say, okay, the default position for any government is to have things go good and make things work out for the people because they want to get reelected. They’re politicians. So they’re trying to do something good, but sometimes they’re just dumb and they’re just incompetent. So we got to get them voted out or whatever and bring them back in. But as you were pointing out here, a lot of this is like, hang on, you can make mistakes, but when you keep going down a path, as you mentioned here, and we can have a high confidence that the level of destruction and consequence you just mentioned is probable, maybe to the near certain. And if we take that, then we do so with our eyes wide open. Now you had an interview with Tucker Carlson that’s on your site right now. People can go find it there. And you and he both say, I’m starting to think that maybe this is by design. Can you give us a little insight into what that means or what you’ve discovered?

CHRIS MARTENSON: Yeah. So I’ve got a podcast series running and Tucker was number six in it. And the series is asking the question, is it too late? I’m just trying to find out for my own country, for the United States, is it too late? Is it too late for what to turn us back onto a path where you have justice that’s equal and people can believe in our economy isn’t clearly heading off the rails with too much debt. We’ve got an actual focus on our country to the point that young people think, wow, I can believe in this. And the subtext of this is, can we vote our way out of this? You know, Frederick Douglass back in the day said, man’s rights rest in three boxes, the ballot box, the jury box, and the cartridge box. And we’re just trying to find out, do those first two boxes, are they still applicable? So I’m asking everybody this question from economic directions, financial, spiritual, moral, geopolitical, all that stuff. But I don’t know anybody quite as steep in this as Tucker. He looks at it from all those different angles and I consider him far more versed in this than I am. And I just want to ask, how do you add this up? And he just said flat out, look, when I see people, I don’t want it to be this way, but when I see people doing things and they keep doing the same things over and over again, eventually you just have to accept that that’s what they intend to do. And right now, we’re, how many days? 240, I don’t even know. I’ve stopped counting. Days into this war, obviously you were talking about this back in March, like, oh, we lost that war like on day 12, like if by any objective measure, like, oh, we lost all our military bases and radar. Whoops. You know, maybe that wasn’t what we thought and we bit off more than we could chew or something’s changed in how war is conducted and we have to step back and maybe reevaluate. Nope. Just carried on, carried on, carried on. There was no legitimate attempts really that I could detect to engage what I would call honest diplomacy to try and find out, okay, you know, we need some things, you need some things, let’s meet in the middle somewhere. Nope. It was just the United States dictating command after command after command with Trump saying, we’ve won, we’ve won, we’ve won. I can end this anytime I want. And he doesn’t want to end it because we don’t engage in legitimate diplomacy. We are not engaging in what I would consider to be, you know, what would have been the big deal just a few months ago? Iran said, oh, if ships want to come out, no big deal. They pay us a fee, dollar a barrel. They come out through, you know, the Northern route there and they, you know, the prescribed channel that goes up near the Iranian coastline. And we said, that’s intolerable. We will not allow Iran to charge a fee. And now the cost of insurance is upwards of five, even 10% of whole value for a trip. Like we’re adding, we’ve added 30 or $40 a barrel onto the shipping costs because it was intolerable to us that Iran would charge a dollar, right? So you look at this, you say, well, the intention wasn’t obviously to get oil, as much oil out of the Gulf as cheaply as possible, because that was clearly the dollar a barrel option at that point in time. We wish it wasn’t a dollar a barrel, but guess what? Maybe we shouldn’t have done the decapitation strike, and started the whole thing off. So sometimes when you pick a fight, things don’t always go your way and you got to like figure that out. We haven’t figured that out. Now, look, it’s possible that Trump and everybody up there is just a complete clue bag, and they have no idea how the world actually works, or we have to confront the idea that this is actually the plan. And so until I see something change here, Daniel, I’m going to continue on the path of understanding that they want it this way, which means the war is going to drag on. It’s going to actually escalate at certain points. We’re going to see more and more infrastructure damage. We’re going to see less and less oil coming out. We’re going to see higher and higher energy costs. And that’s the plan. Now, I can’t explain that because domestically, politically, it’s a complete disaster, right? I don’t understand what the incentives are in this structure, because I thought the incentive for politicians was to be popular and get reelected. They don’t seem to care about that. So you have to begin to ask what the intent is behind this. That’s a whole longer conversation, a lot of speculation, but now I’m pretty clear this is by design.

DANIEL DAVIS: And let’s just muse, because we’re not going to be able to ascertain this with any level of certainty, but just looking at the evidence that we have, one would then ask who? Who is it that would want things to go in this direction here? And, you know, you might be tempted to think, well, the president of the United States, he’s the leader of the free world. But something happened on June 17th that leads me to believe that he may not be calling the shots. It’s somebody else that we don’t know of actually has more power to include over him. And that was when we signed the memorandum of understanding. And we got that exit. We got the who dodged a bullet here, because now then we have a golden opportunity to walk away. Trump gets to even have some face saving by having this memorandum signed. And he said a couple things, two things on that day that he signed that that made me think, OK, he does understand. Number one, he said, well, if we didn’t do this now, if we didn’t open this up, our strategic petroleum reserve within four weeks, we get down to some critical level and we couldn’t have that. And I don’t want to be President Hoover. I don’t want to be the one to oversee a global depression. So he understood what was at stake there. But then within five days, we went back in and sabotaged it by adding a southern corridor in the Strait of Hormuz with the Omani side that was not even mentioned anywhere in there. And so we start sending ships to it, completely contrary to what we had agreed to in paragraph five and signed. And we never, of course, did paragraph one with Lebanon, with Israel and Lebanon. That’s another matter we’ll talk. But it makes it really look like somebody got back to President Trump and said, yeah, forget what you just said. Screw this up so it doesn’t it doesn’t end. What do you think?

CHRIS MARTENSON: I think that’s exactly right. And by the way, isn’t that I thought there was there was some some omentous sort of imagery in that, wasn’t that treaty signed at Versailles? Yeah. Oh, important article, treaty at Versailles, not the treaty of Versailles. Big difference. But it’s just whoever picked that imagery to that. Daniel, they know this. They can’t that can’t have been lost on them. I mean, it’s just I feel like it’s just a clown show and that they’re almost like rubbing our noses in it. Oh, we’re going to sign this thing. And it’s it’s not even worth it will be violated before the ink is literally even dry on this thing. Right. So how do we take that? Well, we take it that it was either that was a completely insincere MOU. We meant no word of it. They are at Versailles with Macron, of all people. Oh, man.

DANIEL DAVIS: Yeah. So enthusiastic.

CHRIS MARTENSON: No, I mean, look, it’s really clear, obviously, that that Israel’s up to their eyeballs in this whole thing. And Israel does not want Israel tried forever to get the United States dragged into a war in Iran. I have articles I wrote back in 2008 warning about the war drums being beaten around Iran, because, you know, back then, you know, we saw George W. Bush. I watched I was watching all these things build up like, oh, my gosh, somebody’s trying to get him to go into Iran. Didn’t happen. I watched the same thing happened under Obama. I watched the same thing happened under Biden. And then finally, Trump came along and did it. But it’s very clear, obviously, that Bibi Netanyahu has been pushing for this for a long time and other players besides. And and so this is Israel’s bidding. And it does not serve the interests of my country, harms my country enormously, probably has done permanent, fatal sort of geopolitical regional damage to the United States. But more importantly, I guess this was inevitable anyway. Can’t pin this on Israel. Sooner or later, we were going to find out that the United States war machine, how we’ve constructed it as a very, very expensive jalopy. You know, we make missiles slowly. They work not at all. And we hadn’t quite adapted to just what really had been happening in the Ukraine theater where we watched drone warfare advance at light speed missiles. It’s pretty clear that that sailing big giant ship groups across the ocean to project your power is not quite what it used to be. And let’s just put this in context. The year before the war started, the U.S. spent eight hundred eighty billion that we know about on defense, military hardware and all that. And Iran’s budget for that was about eight billion. So one hundred to one asymmetry. And they fought us to a standstill. Now they had some geography going in there in their way, but really it was the technologies changed. And oh, my gosh, if you can’t project power and you need the world to use power to project the petrodollar. And Trump came out right and said, I don’t worry about bond yields because we can force countries. We’ll use our military, like make them buy our bonds. The idea that the United States can project itself militarily. That took a ding. Right. I’m sure. Yes, we’ve got a powerful military. I wouldn’t. I’m not discounting it, but I’m telling you the balance of power has now shifted enormously and it’s there for the whole world to see. And I think that is going to have enormous implications to our dollar and to our standing in the world and most importantly, to our ability to import eight to nine hundred billion dollars worth of goods every year and have the world gladly take the product we offer in exchange, which is the dollar.