CMR is the leading provider of funding and management support for small to medium-sized businesses and entrepreneurs 

Within the opening days of the Iran-US-Israel war, the State Department urged Americans across 14 countries in the Middle East region to urgently depart. There's since been an ongoing US government facilitated evacuation effort. Private tour groups have also been coordinating to get people out.

For example, stranded tourists in Israel have rushed south, across the Egyptian border on buses, where they can safely arrange flights from Cairo. For the first time of the war, Turkey has just been added to the list - a rarity given it has long been viewed as a place of stability and is a prime tourist destination. 

But the new State Department travel advisory has yet to be extended over the whole of the country, instead Americans are being warned not to visit southeast Turkey and for anyone currently there to depart immediately.

It warns of the potential terrorism, armed conflict, and arbitrary detentions, according to the advisory - at a moment bombs between Iran, Israel, the US and Gulf countries continue to fly. And importantly, a staff draw down:

Washington has advised non-essential staff to leave its consulate near the southern Turkish city of Adana near a key NATO base and ordered US citizens to leave “southeast Turkey,” the US embassy to Ankara said Monday.

There are American troops at several bases in Turkey, particularly at NATO's major Incirlik air base, near Adana

"On March 9, 2026, the Department of State ordered non-emergency US government employees and US government employee family members to leave Consulate General Adana due to the safety risks," the US embassy said on X.

It further declared that "Americans in southeast Turkey are strongly encouraged to depart now."

Last week saw a couple of very serious developments which impact Turkey. First, a ballistic missile from Iran flew over the large Asia minor country and was intercepted by NATO defenses in the Mediterranean.

Also, days ago there was an avalanche of global headlines alleging the CIA was preparing Kurdish groups based in Iraq for a cross-border attack on Iran.

Some of these are the very groups Turkey has long been bombing just across its eastern border in northern Iraq. While Iraq as well as the Iraqi Kurdistan government of the north denied that this was happening - the alleged plan has the potential to destabilize part of southeast Turkey.

U.S. Embassy in Ankara has ordered all non-essential personnel to leave its consulate in Adana, located near NATO's Incirlik Air Base. It has also urged Americans to leave southeastern Turkey immediately. https://t.co/ImrW3rRWvi

— OSINT Spectator (@osintspectator) March 9, 2026

The State Dept alert could be alluding to the tense geopolitical situation with the Kurds in the following: "Terrorists may attack tourist locations, transportation hubs, markets, malls, hotels, and places of worship," the advisory warned.

G-7 finance ministers are holding an emergency meeting on Monday morning to discuss options to cap skyrocketing energy prices, with Brent and WTI trading in triple-digit territory as the Middle East conflict threatens to unleash a global energy shock. As the U.S.-Iran conflict intensifies heading into the new week, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps has warned of $200-a-barrel oil.

IRGC spokesman Ebrahim Zolfighari said on Monday that the U.S. has begun a new chapter in the conflict by targeting Iran's energy infrastructure.

"If they can afford the price of oil at $200 per barrel, let them keep playing this game," Zolfighari said in a video message posted by Al Jazeera on X.

“If they can afford the price of oil at $200 per barrel, let them keep playing this game.”

The spokesman for a wing of the IRGC, Ebrahim Zolfighari, says the US has opened a new chapter in the war by bombing Iran’s energy infrastructure. pic.twitter.com/UNy21beiAj

— Al Jazeera English (@AJEnglish) March 9, 2026

Over the weekend, Israeli strikes on major oil facilities around Tehran, combined with production shut-ins by major Gulf producers and IRGC retaliatory attacks on energy facilities across the Middle East, sparked panic in energy markets worldwide, with Brent crude briefly topping $119 per barrel in Asian trading.

On Friday, Goldman analyst Daan Struyven wrote four reasons why oil prices are moving higher:

• Shipping has stopped. We estimate that shipments passing through the Strait of Hormuz are down 90% from normal, curtailing 18 mbpd from the global market (~18% of global oil).

• Pipeline pressures. We estimate only about 25% of the theoretical redirection of oil in the Middle East through pipelines is currently being achieved, partly due to physical disruptions. We estimate only ~0.9 mbpd are incrementally coming to market through Middle East pipeline initiatives.

• No quick shipping solutions. Our conversations highlight that most shippers are in a wait-and-see mode while physical risks in the SoH are high.

• Demand destruction may be necessary. With no supply relief in sight, oil prices may need to go to demand-destruction levels even more quickly than history and simple models focusing on Persian Gulf exports alone suggest.

Goldman's Rich Privorotsky commented on the speculation of SPR dumps, indicating:

Such a release would buy time. If the disruption proves temporary, a coordinated SPR release makes sense. If the disruption persists for months, those reserves might arguably be more valuable at higher prices or in a more acute shortage.

Additionally, energy economist Anas Alhajji warned UBS analysts last week about SPR limitations:

"The impact of the U.S. SPR is limited. Saudi Arabia is completely out of the picture. All of that spare capacity in OPEC is out of the picture. So what do we do? We are then left relying on demand destruction to curb"

Related:

• JPMorgan's New Hormuz Closure Math: Just 3 Days Until Commodity Chaos

What's evident is that Operation Epic Fury, which initially focused on military, nuclear, missile, and IRGC sites, is now targeting economic high-value assets, with Iran's Kharg Island now in focus (read). 

With the Fed in their self-imposed blackout period, the economic data will get a chance to do the talking ahead of the March 18th FOMC meeting. Of particular note will be the inflation data, namely Wednesday’s CPI report for February and Friday’s core PCE reading for January, but there will also be some scattered labor market data to help put context around last Friday’s disappointing February employment report. Of course, all of that assumes that traders can be dragged away from the latest Iran war headlines fro more than 5 minutes. 

Turning to this week's main event, the February CPI report will get top billing. DB's expectations are for a 1.0% increase in energy prices to boost headline CPI (+0.27% forecast vs. +0.17% previous) relative to core (+0.24% vs. +0.30%). This translates to a year-over-year rate of 2.40% (vs. 2.39% previous), while the latter would tick down by 4bps to 2.46%. Within the CPI basket, DB looks for tariff-related strength in core goods, particularly apparel. In addition, recent gains in wholesale used car prices have the potential to begin adding to price pressures over the next couple of months. On the services side, expect more rental disinflation, though recent upward revisions to the repeat-rent indices suggest caution around the speed at which that can occur. Also look for payback from January’s particularly large increase in airfare prices, though recent moves in energy prices could add to airfares going forward. 

Also of note on the inflation front this week will be Friday’s personal income (+0.4% forecast vs. +0.3% previous) and consumption (+0.1% vs. +0.4%) report for January, which will contain that month’s reading on core PCE, the Fed’s preferred inflation measure. Based on the January CPI and PPI data, DB is expecting a 0.42% increase (vs. +0.36%), which would take the year-over-year rate up a tenth to 3.1%. The Fed will have to wait until the morning of their March 18th meeting for the PPI data to get a more complete read on February’s core PCE. Based on our component-level CPI forecasts, our prior expectation is for a 0.18% February gain, which would have the year-over-year rate decline to 2.8%.

In terms of the labor market data, ADP’s weekly data on Tuesday covering the week of February 21st will provide an initial view on net hiring trends beyond February’s survey week. Similarly, Thursday’s jobless claims and Friday’s January JOLTs release will give additional context on gross labor market flows.

The remainder of the data this week will help forecasters sharpen their views on current quarter growth. Growth data will also feature. Revisions to the second estimate of fourth quarter GDP (Friday) will update the baseline from which to judge early 2026 momentum. Tuesday’s existing home sales (3.81mn vs. 3.91mn) for February and Thursday’s housing starts (1.325mn vs. 1.404mn) and permits (1.450 vs. 1.455mn) for January will provide an update on the residential sector. We will also get a preliminary look into the health of the factory sector with January’s durable goods orders (+0.4% vs. -1.4% headline / +0.4% vs. +0.8% core) on Friday as well.

Friday will also see the preliminary release of the University of Michigan survey for March. While DB expects a decline in sentiment (55.0 vs. 56.6), due to the recent hostilities in the Middle East, also important for the Fed will be consumers’ inflation expectations.

Over in Europe, the focus will be on the monthly GDP for January in the UK (Friday), German January factory orders and industrial production (today) and the trade balance (tomorrow), and February CPIs in Norway and Denmark (both tomorrow).

Rounding out with earnings, there will be reports from Oracle and Adobe in the US as well as Inditex, Rheinmetall, Volkswagen and BMW in Europe. Finally, the focus will be on the Saudi Aramco earnings tomorrow amidst the big rise in oil prices last week.

Fed reaction

The emergence of shale production in the US has helped to limit the impact of oil price spikes on the economy. Indeed, within the Fed’s FRB/US model, a $20/bbl increase in oil prices only increases unemployment by about 2bps and has almost no impact on core PCE inflation. However, with downside risks to the labor market while inflation has run above target for almost five years in a row, the response for the Fed to such a supply shock is not clear. Indeed, looking at the Fed’s prior responses to energy shocks does not yield a regular pattern (see “What does history tell us about the Fed's response to oil price shocks?”). Sometimes, the Fed emphasized the threat to the inflation side of their dual mandate while other times, it sought to protect against any deterioration in the labor market.

In the current episode, with inflation expected to be on a downward trajectory, the market could give the Fed some leeway to “look through” another supply-side shock. That said, inflation has been too high for too long, and the latest data calls into question how much disinflation can reasonably be expected, especially if there are increases in measures of inflation expectations (e.g., Friday’s Michigan data). On the flipside, growth looks strong but there are concerns on a forward-looking basis, for example, due to the potential for AI to disrupt the labor market.

In summary, the February jobs report, as well as January’s, makes it clear that one month’s data should never be taken in isolation. San Francisco Fed President Daly made this point in the wake of last Friday’s release, noting that while February’s data gives her some concern, all the moving parts like the strike and the change in population controls make it harder to interpret.

While the more dovish members will likely point to the February employment report as justification for more policy support, the Committee, as a whole, will likely need more data to ascertain the underlying state of the labor market. We continue to expect the Fed to cut rates only once this year, should disinflationary pressures become clear in the second half of 2026. However, if February’s weakness is confirmed in subsequent months (not our base case), that could open a path to an earlier reduction

Courtesy of DB, here is a day-by-day calendar of events:

Monday March 9

• Data: US February NY Fed 1-yr inflation expectations, China February CPI, PPI, Japan February Economy Watchers survey, bank lending, January labor cash earnings, BoP current account, trade balance, leading index, coincident index, Germany January factory orders, industrial production
• Central banks: ECB’s Elderson speaks
• Earnings: CATL, Constellation Software, HPE

Tuesday March 10

• Data: US February NFIB small business optimism, existing home sales, China February trade balance, Japan February PPI, machine tool orders, M2, M3, January household spending, Germany January trade balance, France January trade balance, current account balance, Italy January PPI, Sweden January GDP indicator, Norway February CPI, Denmark February CPI
• Central banks: ECB’s Simkus and Muller speak
• Earnings: Saudi Arabian Oil, Oracle, Volkswagen, Partners Group
• Auctions: US 3-yr Notes ($58bn)

Wednesday March 11

• Data: US February CPI, federal budget balance
• Central banks: Fed’s Bowman speaks, ECB’s Guindos and Schnabel speak
• Earnings: Inditex, Rheinmetall, Telecom Italia
• Auctions: US 10-yr Notes (reopening, $39bn)

Thursday March 12

• Data: US January trade balance, housing starts, building permits, Q4 household change in net worth, initial jobless claims, UK February RICS house price balance, Canada January international merchandise trade, building permits
• Central banks: Fed’s Bowman speaks, ECB’s Villeroy speaks
• Earnings: Adobe, Generali, BMW, RWE, Dollar General
• Auctions: US 30-yr Bond (reopening, $22bn)

Friday March 13

• Data: US January PCE, personal income, personal spending, durable goods orders, JOLTS report, March University of Michigan survey, UK January monthly GDP, Germany February wholesale price index, January current account balance, Italy January industrial production, Canada January manufacturing sales, February labour force survey
• Central banks: BoE inflation attitudes survey

Focusing on just the US, Goldman writes that the key economic data releases this week are the CPI report on Wednesday and the durable goods and core PCE reports on Friday. Fed officials are not expected to comment on monetary policy this week, reflecting the blackout period ahead of the March FOMC meeting. 

Monday, March 9 

• No major economic data releases scheduled. 

Tuesday, March 10 

• 10:00 AM Existing home sales, February (GS +0.5%, consensus -0.8%, last -8.4%) 

Wednesday, March 11 

• 08:30 AM CPI (MoM), February (GS +0.18%, consensus +0.3%, last +0.2%); Core CPI (MoM), February (GS +0.17%, consensus +0.2%, last +0.3%); CPI (YoY), February (GS +2.34%, consensus +2.4%, last +2.4%); Core CPI (YoY), February (GS +2.42%, consensus +2.5%, last +2.5%): We estimate a 0.17% increase in February core CPI (month-over-month SA), which would lower the year-over-year rate by 0.1pp to 2.4% on a rounded basis. We expect softer autos inflation, reflecting a 0.5% decline in used car prices, a slight increase in new car prices (+0.2%), and a decline in the car insurance category (-0.3%). We expect a smaller contribution from travel services inflation (airfares: flat vs. +6.5% in January; hotels: +0.5% vs. -0.5% in January), reflecting signals from alternative price data. We forecast a benign increase in the shelter categories (rent: +0.22%, OER: +0.22%), reflecting a continued slowdown in their underlying trend. We expect unchanged medical services prices, reflecting a continued decline in medical insurance prices (-1.0%). We expect upward pressure from tariffs on categories that are particularly exposed (such as recreation) worth +0.05pp. We estimate a 0.18% rise in headline CPI, reflecting higher food (+0.1%) and energy (+0.5%) prices.

Thursday, March 12 

• 08:30 AM Trade balance, January (GS -$63.0bn, consensus -$66.0bn, last -$70.3bn) 
• 08:30 AM Initial jobless claims, week ended March 7 (GS 215k, consensus 215k, last 213k); Continuing jobless claims, week ended February 28 (consensus 1,850k, last 1,868k)
• 08:30 AM Housing starts, January (GS -2.0%, consensus -4.6%, last +6.2%) 

Friday, March 13 

• 08:30 AM Personal income, January (GS +0.6%, consensus +0.5%, last +0.3%); Personal spending, January (GS +0.3%, consensus +0.3%, last +0.4%); Core PCE price index, January (GS +0.39%, consensus +0.4%, last +0.4%); Core PCE price index (YoY), January (GS +3.07%, consensus +3.1%, last +3.0%); PCE price index, January (GS +0.30%, consensus +0.3%, last +0.4%); PCE price index (YoY), January (GS +2.85%, consensus +2.9%, last +2.9%): We estimate that personal income and spending increased by 0.6% and 0.3%, respectively, in January. We estimate that the core PCE price index rose 0.39% in January, corresponding to a year-over-year rate of +3.07%. Additionally, we expect that the headline PCE price index increased 0.30% in January, or increased 2.85% from a year earlier.
• 08:30 AM Durable goods orders, January preliminary (GS +1.0%, consensus +1.1%, last -1.4%); Durable goods orders ex-transportation, January preliminary (GS +0.5%, consensus +0.5%, last +1.0%); Core capital goods orders, January preliminary (GS +0.5%, consensus +0.5%, last +0.8%); Core capital goods shipments, January preliminary (GS +0.6%, consensus +0.5%, last +1.0%): We estimate that durable goods orders increased by 1% in the preliminary January report (month-over-month, seasonally adjusted), reflecting an increase in commercial aircraft orders. We forecast a 0.5% increase in core capital goods orders and a 0.6% increase in core capital goods shipments—the latter reflecting the increase in orders in the prior month.
• 08:30 AM GDP, Q4 second release (GS +1.6%, consensus +1.4%, last +1.4%); Personal consumption, Q4 second release (GS +2.4%, consensus +2.4%, last +2.4%): We estimate a 0.2pp upward revision to Q4 GDP growth to +1.6% (quarter-over-quarter annualized). Our forecast reflects a downward revision to business fixed investment growth based on softer software spending details in the quarterly services survey (QSS) that is more than offset by upward revisions to residential fixed investment and inventory accumulation. We estimate a modest upward revision to consumer spending that leaves the rounded Q4 growth rate unchanged at 2.4%.
• 10:00 AM University of Michigan consumer sentiment, March preliminary (GS 54.5, consensus 55.3, last 56.6): University of Michigan 5-10-year inflation expectations, March preliminary (GS 3.5%, last 3.3%)
• 10:00 AM JOLTS job openings, January (GS 7,000k, consensus 6,750k, last 6,542k)

Source: DB, Goldman

Update (1055ET):

G-7 finance ministers used headlines in Asia, including calls for a meeting to discuss an SPR release, as a purely performative attempt to calm chaotic energy markets.

Now that the emergency meeting is over, the group of leaders failed to agree on releasing crude supplies. Those headlines briefly hit Brent down from around $119/bbl to near $100, but once again, it appears to have been little more than a circus act as world leaders stare directly into what could become an energy shock.

France said the G-7 is not yet prepared to move forward with a coordinated release of SPR in response to Operation Epic Fury, which has unleashed chaos across the Middle East. 

French Finance Minister Roland Lescure told the other ministers that the group stands ready to take whatever steps are necessary to stabilize conditions and is closely monitoring developments, including the possible use of the SPR.

"We agreed on following the situation very closely, we are ready to take all necessary measures including using strategic reserves to stabilize the market," Lescure said after the meeting, quoted by Bloomberg. 

Bloomberg commodities analyst Javier Blas said on X that the G-7 stopped short of authorizing an SPR release and instead opted to continue monitoring energy markets. He added that Japan cited an IEA recommendation urging G-7 leaders to consider tapping reserves to contain the oil price spike.

BREAKING:

G-7 nations decide against releasing SPR for now
G-7 agreed to continue monitoring energy markets

Japan says IEA recommended G7 to release SPR

— Javier Blas (@JavierBlas) March 9, 2026

The Financial Times reports:

G-7 finance ministers are poised to release a joint statement saying the countries "stand ready to take necessary measures, including to support global energy supply, such as a stockpile release," according to people familiar with the situation.

A virtual meeting on Monday included the heads of the IEA, IMF, World Bank, and OECD, according to those people.

"We discussed the current conflict in the Middle East, its impact on regional stability, global economic conditions, and financial markets, and the importance of secure trading routes," the ministers are expected to say in the statement.

How G-7 leaders jawboned energy markets today: 

This desperate circus act by G-7 leaders suggests that the energy shock rippling through the system could be historic, especially as an IRGC spokesperson warned of $200/bbl crude prices.

At what price does the G7, in fact, release SPRs?

*   *   * 

Asian and European equities traded lower, while U.S. equity futures fell 1% as Brent and WTI futures traded in triple-digit territory following the weekend escalation in Middle East tensions. The energy shock we have been warning about for the past week, citing top institutional desks from JPMorgan, UBS, Goldman, and others, is now staring G-7 leaders directly in the face as energy market panic erupts.

You know conditions are deteriorating very quickly when the Financial Times reports that G-7 finance ministers are set to hold an 8:30 a.m. New York time call to discuss a possible coordinated release of strategic oil reserves to combat runaway crude prices, as Brent crude hit $119/bbl overnight. Such a move to dump SPR on global markets shows just how afraid policymakers are that the oil shock could crush consumer sentiment and, in turn, hit economic growth.

There have been five coordinated SPR dumps onto the global market with the International Energy Agency. The last two occurred in 2022, in the early days of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, which sent energy prices through the roof. However, as we must note, dumping SPRs in 2022 did not work so well, and the market will likely look beyond current flows and focus on overall stockpiles being drained (read: here & here).

Hello @ENERGY it's time to open the SPR

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) March 9, 2026

The scramble by G-7 leaders comes as Brent crude hit $119/bbl in Asia, up from about $72 before Operation Epic Fury kicked off more than a week ago, now in its second week. With the Strait of Hormuz effectively closed and Gulf producers cutting output as storage fills up, the worst-case scenario appears to be unfolding: an energy shock.

To cushion the shock, potentially bridging some of the supply gap of a short-term war (but definitely not a longer term or wider disruption) FT sources said world leaders could release 300 million to 400 million barrels, or about 25% to 30% of the 1.2 billion-barrel reserve.

Given the extreme moves, any announcement is likely to move prices (and indeed is already being somewhat discounted) but the question remain of whether that will actually impact the cost of pump prices in America (which are set to soar to $5 a gallon, however briefly, on a lagged response to WTI and RBOB price surges currently).

As Goldman's Rich Privorotsky noted:

Such a release would buy time. If the disruption proves temporary, a coordinated SPR release makes sense. If the disruption persists for months, those reserves might arguably be more valuable at higher prices or in a more acute shortage 

WTI is down $20 from its overnight highs on the report of the coordinated SPR release...

Late last week, JPMorgan's top commodity strategist, Natasha Kaneva, did the 'Hormuz Math' and warned that production shut-ins were imminent - hence the weekend production cuts by major Gulf states and Brent crude spiking into triple-digit territory.

Additionally, energy economist Anas Alhajji warned UBS analysts last week about SPR limitations:

"The impact of the U.S. SPR is limited. Saudi Arabia is completely out of the picture. All of that spare capacity in OPEC is out of the picture. So what do we do? We are then left relying on demand destruction to curb prices. And because of the panic buying, prices would go above $100 easily in this scenario."

Even if the conflict in the Middle East ended today, Alhajji explained that returning Gulf oil and gas production to a 'normal state' would take two months because of logistical and technical issues. This only implies that an energy shock has begun. Deutsche Bank warned in recent days that this was an "existential threat" to airlines, and next could very well be a shock to consumers. The only question now is whether the shock is big enough to cause a financial blow to countries that are among the largest importers of crude from the Gulf region, such as China and other Asian countries.

Oklo and Centrus Energy announced they have agreed to pursue a joint venture focused on deconversion services for high-assay low-enriched uranium (HALEU) and the advancement of related fuel-cycle technologies and supply chains.

The JV would operate at Centrus’ Piketon site in Ohio, co-located with the existing enrichment facility and adjacent to Oklo’s planned 1.2 GW power campus. Centrus also recently started expansion efforts at their site and was awarded $900 million to support their HALEU project.

The language being used by company leadership to describe the goals of the JV points to their intentions of pursuing the establishment of a Nuclear Lifecycle Innovation Campus (NLIC) in Ohio.

CEO and co-founder of Oklo Jacob DeWitte stated:

“This framework supports deeper discussions with Centrus on potential pathways to expand deconversion capacity, strengthen domestic supply chains, and advance a more efficient fuel-cycle model that operates from the same location.”

The NLIC program is a push by the DOE to incentivize state governments to host the various stages of the nuclear fuel chain within their borders. States like Texas, Tennessee, and Ohio are getting the message. Other anti-nuclear waste states like New Mexico and California will continue denying their residents the extra tax revenue and high paying job opportunities…

Deconversion transforms enriched uranium hexafluoride (UF6) into forms such as uranium metal or oxide suitable for fabricating fuel assemblies in next-generation reactors. A centralized facility could eliminate the need for individual developers to establish their own deconversion capabilities.

This announcement advances a longstanding partnership. The companies first collaborated via a 2021 letter of intent and expanded ties with a 2023 memorandum of understanding that included HALEU supply from Centrus, component manufacturing, power procurement from Oklo’s plants, and plans for deconversion and fuel fabrication.

As we have been pounding the table for months now, it seems like more companies are getting serious about finally addressing the shortcomings in the American nuclear fuel chain.

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

In Rage and the Republic, I quote former Rep. Jaamal Bowman (D., N.Y.) as capturing the essence of an age of rage when a colleague asked him to stop yelling outside of the House floor. Bowman responded, “I was screaming before you interrupted me.”

Bowman’s statement came to mind this week when Democratic members were miffed when they were interrupted in tirades over war powers with questions about their prior support for unilateral attacks by Democratic presidents. Leaders like Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D., Cal.) and Sen. Adam Schiff (D., Cal.) struggled to explain their prior support for President Barack Obama in doing precisely that in Libya with embarrassing results.

The greatest face plant may have been Schiff’s appearance on “Real Time” with host Bill Maher.

After Schiff denounced any attack without prior congressional approval, Maher read “This statement from the administration: ‘The president had the constitutional authority to direct the use of military force because he could reasonably determine that such use of force was in the national interest.’”

He then asked Schiff, “That’s too vague for you?”

Schiff responded, “Totally vague…”

Mayer than dropped the H bomb: “Okay. Because that’s from Obama about Libya.”

??Bill Maher TRAPS Sen. Adam Schiff LIVE on air while U.S. strikes on the Middle East.

Schiff rips into the “vague” statement, convinced it’s from Trump… BUT FINDS OUT IT'S FROM OBAMA??

The double standard is glaring. ??pic.twitter.com/qpQoOU4Hqn

— The Rubin Report (@RubinReportShow) March 9, 2026

The moment laid bare the towering hypocrisy of democrats who continued to support Obama after he attacked Libya without any suggested imminent threat to the United States and an open strategy of regime change.

I represented members of Congress opposing that war over the absence of a declaration of war; most of the senior Democrats today refused to join that litigation.

Pelosi is especially hypocritical on the issue.

She expressly declared that Obama did not need congressional authorization to launch unilateral attacks on Libya seeking regime change. She stated unequivocally that ”I’m satisfied that the president has the authority to go ahead. I say that as one very protective of Congressional prerogative and consultation all along the way.”

Reporters then followed up and pressed her if she really believed that a president could not only launch an unprovoked war but could also continue combat operations without congressional approval. Pelosi answered “yes.”

This week, she made a ham-fisted effort to spin the contradiction. She told the media that the Iran and Libyan wars are “two completely different things. They’re not at all alike.”

Pelosi added, “What Obama did was limited military force. This is beyond that. It was limited military force.” In signature fashion, she then struck out at pesky reporters asking about her past position: “Do your homework. Read the law. We have lost people in war already… I just think if you read the law, you will see the difference.”

While not challenged on the spin, it is historically and legally nonsensical.

The Libyan War was not limited. The Obama Administration attacked the capital city of a country that was posing no imminent threat to the United States. It also took out columns of Libyan military units. It did so with the overt strategy of producing regime change. Figures like then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton supported the action, which led to years of violence and instability in the country.

More importantly, it is immaterial how the two major operations stack up. The question is whether a president can launch large-scale military operations against another country based on their inherent Article II powers. Both Obama and Trump maintained that they could do so and we lost the challenge to the Libyan War.

Moreover, while there are good-faith objections to the need for the attack, presidents have successfully claimed the right to initiate combat operations without congressional authorization.  That has boxed in Congress since the Jefferson administration.

Even though both Democratic and Republican presidents have questioned the constitutionality of the War Powers Act, Trump has actually complied with the requirements to notify and consult with Congress.  The law requires presidents to inform Congress within 48 hours if U.S. forces are introduced into hostilities and requires congressional authorization for engagements that last more than 60 days.

Moreover, both houses have now voted and rejected any limits on Trump’s authority to prosecute this war.

They are, of course, not alone in this hypocrisy.

In 2011,  Sen. Richard Blumenthal praised Obama’s unilateral attack on Libya as a “prudent, decisive action.” This year, he denounced Trump’s attack on Iran as a “unilateral action without accountability…engaging in a war of choice that rejects opportunities for diplomacy.”

These glaring contradictions mean little today in our post-truth political environment. These politicians know that their base does not care as long as they oppose Trump. The obvious misrepresentation of their positions in the past would ordinarily be viewed as raw contempt for the intelligence of the voters. However, they know their base and the license of rage. They also know that the media will not press particularly hard on their flip-flop.

It is that rage that is giving Democrats the courage to vote virtually unanimously to end all combat operations in the midst of an existential battle over Iran. It is the same assurance that is evident in continuing the government shutdown by denying funding to the Department of Homeland Security.

The vote not to fund Homeland Security during a fight with the leading state sponsor of terrorism may stand as the single most reckless, irresponsible vote since Congress authorized the payment of “tribute” to the Barbary Pirates.

The important thing is that, now that these members simply denied that there is any contradiction with their positions from prior Democratic Administrations, they can now avoid further interruptions in this rage rave.

Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the author of the New York Times bestselling “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.”