February U.S. commercial real estate transaction activity appeared soft on the surface, but Goldman analysts believe the weak initial print will likely be revised meaningfully higher. The most notable area of weakness in last month’s transaction data was across the retail space, which is not especially surprising as the K-shaped economy continues to pressure lower-income consumers.

Goldman real estate analyst Julien Blouin wrote Wednesday that the initial February reading on CRE transaction volumes showed a 13% year-over-year decline. He noted that transaction data from MSCI Real Assets is typically “revised materially higher” and said the early print is not a major cause for concern.

Blouin added that prior months were revised higher by roughly 24% to 25% on average, suggesting the final February reading will likely show transaction growth in the high single-digit territory once the data is finalized.

February Transaction Volumes

Volumes are muted and well below Covid surge. Need rates lower. 

Deal activity is improving in some areas, especially office and industrial. Multifamily faced a much tougher comparison versus the same period last year, so the decline looks a lot worse than the underlying trend. The sharpest drop in CRE transactions was in retail, which includes shops, strip malls, convenience stores, restaurants, and malls.

CRE bucket breakdown for February:

Multifamily/apartments: down 24% year over year

Office: up 9%

Industrial: up 15%

Retail: down 61%

Retail CRE volumes plunged 

Blouin did not get into the details of the slump in retail deal activity, but it does appear buyers may still be selective in retail, due in part to the K-shaped economy, which is pressuring lower-income consumers’ ability to go out and spend at restaurants and shops.

Related:

AI Takeover Complete: Data Center Construction Surpasses Office Construction For The First Time

The takeaway is that the sharp drop in retail CRE transactions likely reflects buyer caution around consumer-exposed properties, given everything we know about the K-shaped economy.

Professional subscribers can read the full Goldman note here at our new Marketdesk.ai portal

Authored by Stephen Katte via CoinTelegraph.com,

The UK government is advancing plans for a moratorium on political donations made through cryptocurrencies, following an independent review and pressure from multiple high-ranking politicians.

Cointelegraph reported on Wednesday that the Rycroft Review, an independent inquiry into foreign financial interference in the UK’s political and electoral systems, recommended a moratorium on crypto donations to political parties.

New statements from UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer on Wednesday have confirmed that the government will pursue the temporary ban.

“I can tell the House we will act decisively to protect our democracy. That will include a moratorium on all political donations made through cryptocurrencies,” said Starmer during Prime Minister’s Question Time on Wednesday.

Several members of parliament, including the chair of the security committee, have been pushing for a full ban this year, warning that foreign states could exploit crypto payments to influence UK politics.

UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer pledged a moratorium on all crypto political donations. Source: YouTube 

Under the new measure, crypto will be prohibited for political donations until robust regulations are in place to prevent untraceable funds and foreign interference in UK elections, according to a separate government statement on Wednesday.

Bill still has to pass and become law

The ban would require amending the Representation of the People Bill, and the government said the changes would take “retrospective effect” from March 25.

The legislation is at the committee stage in the House of Commons. It needs to pass through both the House of Commons and the House of Lords, then receive royal assent from King Charles III to become law.

The legislation is still at the committee stage in the House of Commons. Source: UK Parliament 

“Once the legislation comes into force, political parties and regulated entities like candidates and MPs will then have 30 days to return any unlawful donations they may have received in the interim, after which enforcement action can be taken,” the government said.

Reform UK was the first political party in the country to accept crypto donations in May last year, with leader Nigel Farage announcing at the Bitcoin 2025 conference in Las Vegas that the group would accept Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies from eligible donors.

Ban will not be lifted until sign-off from government

Once the ban comes into force, it won’t lift until “Parliament and the Electoral Commission are satisfied that the regulatory environment is robust enough to ensure confidence and transparency in donations being made in this way.”

The next general election in the UK must be held by Aug. 15, 2029.

Authored by Lucas Leiroz de Almeida via InfoBrics,

The rhetorical escalation between Budapest and Brussels continues to grow. Now, the EU accuses Hungary of actively sabotaging Europe by passing strategic information about the bloc to the Russian side. This type of serious accusation could never be made without proof, yet it has become common practice for the Western liberal regimes to accuse its rival countries of “collaborating with Russia” even without any evidence.

In a recent statement, the Hungarian Foreign Minister responded to recent European accusations of pro-Russian “espionage” by Hungarian authorities. According to the Hungarian minister, the EU is spreading lies and fake news about Hungary to try to influence the anti-Orban opposition, hoping to obtain a pro-EU result in the upcoming Hungarian elections.

Szijjarto’s words were especially directed at Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk, who had previously repeated rumors that Hungarian officials had informed Russia about sensitive details of the European bloc’s meetings. Tusk acted extremely irresponsibly by spreading unconfirmed rumors on his social media – and even calling on the EU to take action against Hungary.

“The news that Orbán’s people inform Moscow about EU Council meetings in every detail shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone. We’ve had our suspicions about that for a long time. That’s one reason why I take the floor only when strictly necessary and say just as much as necessary,” Tusk said.

Szijjarto made it clear that Tusk’s words are an attempt to provoke dissent in Hungary and mobilize the opposition against the government during the election period. However, he expressed optimism about the Hungarian government’s ability to overcome these challenges, recalling that recent attempts by Brussels to defeat the pro-Orban coalition had failed due to strong popular support for the government.

“Instead of spreading lies and fake news, come to Budapest to support the opposition! Last time it worked… for us (…) You [Tusk] should come to Budapest before April 12 as well! Four years ago, you were the star speaker at the opposition rally, after which we won the elections by 20 percent. Think about it, Budapest is a great place to be,” he said.

Not only did Tusk spread such rumors about Hungary, but even major Western newspapers decided to spread these allegations, despite lacking any concrete evidence to support them. Politico, for example, published an article on the subject, citing various sources among European parliamentarians and officials, mentioning that the EU will take appropriate measures to prevent the leak of its data – including limiting the presence of Hungarian officials in secret meetings.

The sources told Politico that the case is not surprising, as Hungary and Russia have supposedly been “working together” for a long time to harm the EU. Szijjarto was described by the sources as a personal friend of Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and as a “traitor” to his homeland.

“The fact that the Hungarian foreign minister, a close friend of [Russian Foreign Minister] Sergey Lavrov, has been reporting to the Russians practically minute by minute from every EU meeting is outright treason (…) This man has not only betrayed his own country, but Europe as well,” one of the sources told Politico.

It is absolutely reprehensible that this type of content is shared by the mainstream media. Respected newspapers should only share fact-based and verified content, not politically motivated and provocative rumors. Similarly, comments from sources whose sole purpose is to attack other European officials, without providing concrete evidence, should be removed by editors.

However, the mainstream Western media has a clear objective in the Hungarian elections: to help the opposition and create a political atmosphere hostile to Orban’s team. Brussels and its allies, like Tusk, want to reverse the sovereign foreign policy established by the Orban government and induce Hungary to shift towards pro-Ukraine and anti-Russian tendencies. To this end, methods such as spreading lies to provoke the Hungarian electorate are being used.

It would be no surprise if Hungary suffered even harsher measures, such as a total ban from EU meetings or even sanctions. Despite the lack of evidence, Brussels has already made it clear that it opposes Orban and will do everything possible to overthrow him. There have already been direct threats of sanctions against Hungary on previous occasions, and it is possible that this will be repeated.

However, what will happen is the opposite of what European bureaucrats expect: the more threatened Hungary is, the more Eurosceptic and critical of Brussels’ agendas it will become.

A sharp rise in oil prices tied to the US-Israel confrontation with Iran is likely to speed up the global transition to electric vehicles, strengthening a shift that has already helped China overtake Japan as the world’s top car seller, according to South China Morning Post.

Crude prices have surged past $100 a barrel amid fears of disruption to energy supplies, particularly through the Strait of Hormuz. US President Donald Trump escalated tensions by warning he would “obliterate” Iran’s power plants if shipping through the strait was not restored within 48 hours.

Analysts say such risks could have a direct impact on consumer behavior. “The closure of the Strait of Hormuz could be a game-changer for EVs,” said David Brown of Wood Mackenzie. He noted that the recent “eye-watering” 50 per cent spike in oil prices would make electric vehicles more financially attractive. “In those countries with access to low-cost Chinese EVs, the competitive advantage over gasoline-engined cars will come even sooner.”

HSBC economist Justin Feng echoed that view, arguing that prolonged volatility in fuel markets would reinforce EVs as a clear “cost-savings proposition,” particularly across Asia where price sensitivity is high.

SCMP writes that the broader shift is already underway. The number of countries where EVs make up more than 10 per cent of car sales has risen dramatically in recent years, reaching 39 compared with just four in 2019. Adoption has been especially rapid in developing economies, in some cases outpacing wealthier nations.

China stands to benefit significantly from this trend. Its automakers became the world’s largest sellers of vehicles in 2025, ending Japan’s long-held dominance. Companies such as BYD and Geely have also moved ahead of Japanese rivals including Nissan and Honda, while Chinese brands now make up a growing share of the global top 20 by sales.

Exports have played a major role in that rise. China shipped 8.32 million vehicles overseas last year, a 30 per cent increase, with electric vehicles accounting for 2.32 million units, up 38 per cent. Europe remains the biggest market, followed by Southeast Asia, Latin America and the Middle East.

At the same time, higher energy costs could create complications for EV production in the near term. Manufacturing remains energy-intensive, leaving some countries exposed to rising fuel costs. Thailand, which relies heavily on energy imports from the Gulf, is particularly vulnerable.

China, however, is expected to be better positioned to absorb such shocks thanks to its more integrated supply chains and greater flexibility in energy sourcing, allowing its EV sector to continue expanding even amid global uncertainty.

Russia’s top oil port in the Baltic Sea, Primorsk, resumed loading days after it came under attack from Ukrainian drones, although Bloomberg notes that the company that pipes crude there said it is trying to divert barrels elsewhere because of the incidents.

Ukraine attacked Russia’s largest oil port in the Baltic Sea to prevent it from benefiting from rising oil prices: about 60% of Russia’s maritime oil exports pass through the port of Primorsk. pic.twitter.com/M2ghU0o6i1

— Open Source Intel (@Osint613) March 23, 2026

The Minerva Georgia, a Suezmax-class vessel capable of hauling about 1 million barrels of crude, berthed on Wednesday. Another, the Anlan, is scheduled to depart Thursday having been there for several days.

Ukraine has stepped up attacks on Russian oil infrastructure to prevent Putin from benefiting from soaring prices. It also targeted the port of Ust-Luga this week, as well as the Kirishi oil refinery. Transneft, Russia’s pipeline operator, aims to divert flows away from the Baltic ports, Interfax reported.

If Trump is allowed, why don’t we?!

Putin’s burning russian port of Primorsk is visible for the entire flight from Finland. In general, Putin no longer has an oil-loading port in the Baltic. Ukraine has declared an oil embargo on Putin.

And f**k Biden’s escalation management… pic.twitter.com/HDbA4yI54q

— EMPR.media (@EuromaidanPR) March 25, 2026

Kiev’s moves seek to disrupt the flow of Russian petroleum at a time when the Iran war has already caused an unprecedented oil-supply shock. A Turkish oil tanker carrying Russian oil also came under drone attack in the Black Sea.

On Thursday, the European Parliament in Strasbourg delivered what many are calling one of the most significant setbacks in recent memory for the EU’s traditional bureaucratic and centrist consensus.

In a single day, MEPs advanced stricter mass deportation rules, rejected controversial mass surveillance of private communications (known as “Chat Control”), and moved forward on dropping tariffs on key U.S. goods as part of a broader transatlantic trade reset.

This might be one of the worst days in history for the EU Bureaucrats:

– Mass deportation proposal passed
– Chat surveillance proposal rejected
– All tariffs on US goods dropped

The centrists have begun voting en masse with the nationalists…

This has never been seen before. pic.twitter.com/UWokIJ4tjo

— Inevitable West (@Inevitablewest) March 26, 2026

These outcomes reflect a pragmatic and unprecedented alliance between the centre-right European People’s Party (EPP) and right-wing to so-called ‘far-right’ groups such as the Patriots for Europe (PfE), European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR), and others. For the first time in years, traditional “firewalls” isolating nationalist voices have cracked, forcing Commission President Ursula von der Leyen’s agenda into retreat on sovereignty, borders, digital rights, and economic realism.

1. Mass Deportations Advance: A Tougher EU Return Regulation

The Parliament voted overwhelmingly to launch inter-institutional negotiations on a reformed EU Return Regulation – often called the “Deportation Regulation” by critics. The measure aims to make it far easier to deport rejected asylum seekers and irregular migrants. Key provisions include:

Extended detention periods (potentially up to 24 months or more in some cases).
EU-wide recognition of return decisions.
Creation of “return hubs” – offshore detention and processing centers in third countries outside the EU.
Stronger cooperation requirements from returnees and fewer procedural safeguards.

The vote builds on earlier committee approvals and the 2024 Migration Pact (full implementation due June 2026). Centre-right and right-wing MEPs formed a clear majority, overriding opposition from Greens, Socialists, and liberals who warned of a “historic setback for refugee rights.” The International Rescue Committee (IRC) condemned the move as leading to more raids, criminalization, and detention of vulnerable people.

Supporters argue it addresses years of failed integration, rising irregular arrivals, and public frustration post-2015 and 2022 migration surges. Similar national policies in Italy (under Meloni), Denmark, and the Netherlands have already normalized this harder line.

2. Chat Control Defeated: A Victory for Digital Privacy

In a nail-biter described as a “voting thriller,” MEPs rejected attempts to expand or extend untargeted mass scanning of private chats, messages, and photos for child sexual abuse material (CSAM). A narrow amendment (passed by a single-vote margin in key steps) limits any future scanning to targeted, judicially supervised cases involving suspected individuals or groups – explicitly ruling out blanket surveillance of entire platforms or users.

This effectively ends the temporary “Chat Control 1.0” derogation’s broader rollout and aligns with the Parliament’s long-standing 2023 mandate against indiscriminate monitoring. Digital rights advocates, including Pirate MEP Patrick Breyer and groups like DigitalCourage, hailed it as a historic win against Big Tech and Commission overreach. Critics had long argued the proposal violated fundamental rights and risked breaking end-to-end encryption.

The Commission and most of the Council had pushed hard for extensions, but Parliament’s stand – backed by a cross-ideological privacy coalition – prevailed. It sends a clear signal: Europe is prioritizing targeted security tools over mass surveillance.

3. Tariffs on U.S. Goods Dropped: Pragmatic Trade Reset with Trump’s America

MEPs advanced ratification steps for elements of the 2025 EU-U.S. Turnberry trade deal (struck last July in Scotland). This includes eliminating or suspending EU tariffs on major U.S. industrial and agricultural imports in exchange for American concessions and a 15% ceiling on most EU exports to the U.S. Earlier retaliatory tariffs on billions in U.S. goods were effectively sidelined.

The move comes amid ongoing Trump-era pressures – including threats of universal tariffs, LNG supply leverage, and even Greenland-related tensions. Committee votes (e.g., 29-9 in the trade committee) reflected realism: Europe needs stable U.S. energy and defense ties amid Ukraine stalemate and Iran conflict fallout. Full parliamentary approval is expected soon, with safeguards added to protect EU interests.

This de-escalation marks a shift from protectionist posturing to pragmatic partnership — one that right-wing voices have long advocated.

The Political Earthquake: Centrists Align with Nationalists

What makes Thursday truly historic is the voting pattern. EPP MEPs, traditionally the anchor of pro-EU centrism, repeatedly sided with PfE, ECR, and other right-wing blocs – overriding the old Renew-S&D-Green coalition. This “Venezuela majority” (named after an earlier symbolic vote) has now delivered on concrete policy.

Von der Leyen, re-elected in 2024 with broad centrist support, is reportedly furious. Multiple no-confidence motions from the Patriots have failed so far, but her Green Deal, globalist migration, and regulatory agenda face constant erosion. So-called ‘far-right’ groups now act as kingmakers, reflecting the post-2024 election reality where populist parties dominate polls in France (RN), Germany (AfD), Austria (FPÖ), and beyond.

Broader Context: Europe’s Rightward Shift in 2026

These votes are not isolated. They mirror a continent-wide backlash against open borders, digital overreach, inflation/energy crises, and perceived bureaucratic elitism. National trends reinforce the momentum:

France: Marine Le Pen’s RN leads polls ahead of 2027.
Germany: AfD hits record highs in western states.
Hungary: Viktor Orbán faces a tough April 12 election but frames the EU as the real threat.
Italy: Giorgia Meloni’s government remains stable and influential.

Upcoming local and national tests – plus full implementation of the Migration Pact in June – will determine if rhetoric translates to results. Farmers’ protests, youth discontent, and security concerns continue to fuel the shift.

Implementation Challenges and the Road Ahead

While today’s votes are symbolic victories for sovereignty advocates, real change will take time. Return hubs require third-country agreements; Chat Control’s targeted approach still needs enforcement; trade safeguards could face U.S. pushback. Courts, NGOs, and some member states are expected to challenge the hardest edges.

Yet the Overton window has permanently shifted. The old centrist consensus is fracturing. As one MEP from the Patriots group put it anonymously: “We’re at a tipping point.”

Europe isn’t undergoing a full revolution overnight, but Thursday’s actions crystallized a new pragmatic realism. Voters demanded borders, privacy, and economic common sense – and for the first time, a critical mass of MEPs listened. Whether this delivers tangible improvements before the next electoral cycle will define the decade.

Authored by Chris Summers via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The U.N. General Assembly on March 25 adopted a resolution declaring the trafficking of enslaved Africans “the gravest crime against humanity” and calling for reparations.

U.S. First Lady Melania Trump (R) and Kwesi Essel-Blankson, museum educator, tour the Cape Coast Castle, a former slave trading fort, in Cape Coast, Ghana, on Oct. 3, 2018. Saul Loeb/AFP/Getty Images

The vote at U.N. headquarters in New York City saw 123 countries voting in favor of the resolution, with only the United States, Israel, and Argentina voting against it.

The UK, France, Spain, Portugal, and the Netherlands—who were all heavily involved in the slave trade during the 17th, 18th, and part of the 19th centuries—were among the 52 countries that abstained.

General Assembly resolutions, unlike U.N. Security Council resolutions, are not legally binding.

The resolution, put forward by Ghana, “declares the trafficking of enslaved Africans and racialized chattel enslavement of Africans as the gravest crime against humanity,” adding that claims for reparations “represent a concrete step towards remedying historical wrongs against Africans and people of African descent.”

Ghanaian President John Dramani Mahama, who helped draw up the resolution, said an estimated 13 million African men, women, and children were enslaved over several centuries.

The document says that under international law, “states bear responsibility for internationally wrongful acts and have an obligation to cease the act if it is continuing and to offer appropriate assurances and guarantees of non-repetition if the circumstances so require, and to make full reparation for the injury caused, which may take the form of restitution, compensation and satisfaction, either singly or in combination.”

Deputy U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Dan Negrea said before the vote that the resolution’s text was “highly problematic in countless respects.” He said the United States “does not recognize a legal right to reparations for historical wrongs that were not illegal under international law at the time they occurred.”

“The United States also strongly objects to the resolution’s attempt to rank crimes against humanity in any type of hierarchy,” Negrea added. “The assertion that some crimes against humanity are less severe than others objectively diminishes the suffering of countless victims and survivors of other atrocities throughout history.”

International flags fly in front of the United Nations headquarters on Sept. 24, 2015. Dominick Reuter/AFP via Getty Images

Negrea said the United States “must once again remind this body that the United Nations exists to maintain international peace and security” and not to “advance narrow specific interests and agendas, to establish niche International Days, or to create new costly meeting and reporting mandates.”

The British Empire was heavily involved in the slave trade. The UK passed the Abolition of the Slave Trade Act in 1807, but according to the UK Parliament, “slaves in the colonies (excluding areas ruled by the East India Company) were not freed until 1838—and only after slave—owners, rather than the slaves themselves, received compensation.”

At the time, the UK borrowed 20 million pounds ($26.7 million)—equivalent to 2.2 billion pounds ($2.94 billion) in 2026—to compensate slave owners. The debt was paid off in 2014.

James Kariuki, chargé d’affaires at the UK mission to the United Nations, said in a March 25 statement: “We have repeatedly recognised the abhorrent nature of slavery and the transatlantic slave trade, which inflicted untold harm and misery on millions of people over many decades. Its horrors were profound and its legacy continues to leave deep scars today.”

Kariuki said that the UK disagreed with “fundamental propositions of the text” and therefore could not vote in favor of it.

“The UK is firmly of the view that we must not create a hierarchy of historical atrocities,” he said. “None of the recognised sources of international law, as set out in Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice, identify a prohibition on slavery and the slave trade until the 20th century.”

All 27 members of the European Union abstained in the vote. Cypriot Deputy U.N. Ambassador Gabriella Michaelidou, speaking on behalf of the EU, said the resolution had an “unbalanced interpretation of historical events.”

‘Safeguard Against Forgetting’

Mahama, who was elected in 2024, noted that the vote was taking place on the International Day of Remembrance of the Victims of Slavery and the Transatlantic Slave Trade.

He said before the vote that the resolution “serves as a safeguard against forgetting.”

“Let it be recorded that when history beckoned, we did what was right for the memory of the millions who suffered the indignity of slavery,” he said.

U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres, who will be stepping down later this year, said he welcomed the steps some countries are taking to “apologize for their role in the evil of slavery.”

“But far bolder actions, by many more states, are needed,” Guterres said. “This includes commitments to respect African countries’ ownership of their own natural resources.”

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

As analysts and traders continue to assess the Gulf energy shock and its implications for the global economy, another alarming development has emerged across the energy sector: Ukrainian kamikaze drone strikes have reportedly disrupted a significant portion of Russia’s oil export capacity, according to Reuters.

Reuters calculates that recent Ukrainian drone strikes on Russia’s oil and fuel export infrastructure, including attacks on all three of Russia’s major western oil export ports, Novorossiysk on the Black Sea and Primorsk and Ust-Luga on the Baltic Sea, have eliminated 40% of Russia’s oil export capacity, or around 2 million barrels per day, in just a matter of weeks.

Taken together, the twin disruptions of Gulf and Russian energy flows (in Eurasia) materially tighten the global energy supply outlook in the coming weeks and months.

The convergence of these shocks suggests crude prices are likely to remain elevated as traders price in a sustained geopolitical risk premium and reduced global spare capacity.

Kiev has also targeted pumping stations and refineries as part of its effort to squeeze Moscow’s oil revenue, which funds a quarter of Russia’s state budget and its war machine.

This month’s attacks on Russia’s oil and fuel export infrastructure have forced Moscow to divert more flows to eastern export supply channels.

Flows to China via the Skovorodino-Mohe and Atasu-Alashankou pipelines, plus ESPO Blend shipments from Kozmino, remain solid at 1.9 million barrels per day.

Russia is also still exporting around 250,000 barrels per day from Sakhalin and sending roughly 300,000 barrels per day to Belarusian refineries.

When two separate conflicts involving major powers begin to degrade energy infrastructure across Eurasia, we are left with one very big and unsettling question: At what point do both of these conflicts start to look less regional and more like the early stages of a world already at war?

Who wins? Well, Gulf of America, so far. 

Authored by Mike Fredenburg via The Epoch Times,

Despite Air Force claims that the A-10 has no place on the modern battlefield, a claim they have been making for decades, the A-10 is once again using its unmatched versatility and loitering capability to destroy fast-attack watercraft, drones, and enemy positions.

And for the role it is performing in Operation Epic Fury, the Warthog is vastly superior to any F-35, F-15, F-16, B-2, or even the most advanced drone in the U.S. arsenal.

While somewhat sleek, high-flying stealth fighters such as the maintenance-heavy F-35 dominate the Air Force budget, it is the A-10 Thunderbolt II that the Air Force is being forced to rely on to take the fight to the enemy’s backyard in the Strait of Hormuz. U.S. Central Command has confirmed that A-10s are destroying Revolutionary Guard Corps fast-attack boats, shooting Shahed-style drones out of the sky, and striking ground targets.

Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Dan Caine highlighted the Warthog’s southern-flank contributions in a March 19 briefing, noting its ability to provide persistent overwatch where speed and altitude are actually negatives when it comes to the kind of clearing operations for which the A-10’s versatility and toughness make it ideal.

🚨 A-10 WARTHOGS AND APACHES ENTER THE FIGHT IN HORMUZ

U.S. forces have escalated operations in the Strait of Hormuz.

According to statements attributed to General Dan “Razin” Caine:

A-10 Warthogs are now actively targeting Iranian fast attack boats
AH-64 Apache gunships are… pic.twitter.com/HsdQMHEtFF

— Jim Ferguson (@JimFergusonUK) March 25, 2026

As UK’s Jim Ferguson reports, U.S. forces have escalated operations in the Strait of Hormuz.

According to statements attributed to General Dan “Razin” Caine:

A-10 Warthogs are now actively targeting Iranian fast attack boats

AH-64 Apache gunships are engaging drones and militia-linked threats

This is a significant shift.

The A-10 is built for one purpose: Close-range destruction of ground and surface targets.

And now it’s being used to hunt fast-moving vessels in one of the world’s most critical waterways.

At the same time, Apaches are expanding operations across the southern flank and into Iraq — targeting threats before they can escalate.

This marks a new phase:

Not just strikes from above… But persistent, close-range battlefield control.

And in a chokepoint like Hormuz – That changes everything.

The A-10’s versatility starts with its enormous loadout capacity. A single Warthog can haul up to 16,000 pounds of mixed ordnance across eleven hardpoints. Current missions have it carrying AGM-65 Maverick air-to-ground missiles for precision strikes on boats or armored vehicles, APKWS II laser-guided rockets that deliver low-cost kills against cheap drones and agile fast boats, and AIM-9 Sidewinder missiles for additional air-to-air or anti-drone capability. The A-10 can also deliver general-purpose bombs with great precision, as well as dispense mines. All of this is in addition to the aircraft’s legendary 30mm GAU-8 Avenger seven-barrel Gatling gun, firing 3,900 rounds per minute. With 1,174 rounds, the GAU-8 can shred all but the heaviest armor, small vessels, structures, and personnel with devastating kinetic energy.

No other fixed-wing platform or helicopter combines this sheer volume of firepower with the flexibility to switch seamlessly between missiles, rockets, guns, and bombs on the same sortie. And its drone-killing rockets cost just $25,000 to $35,000 each, versus the hundreds of thousands to over a million for the missiles an F-35 would have to use to kill a 20,000 drone.

That versatility is amplified by the A-10’s unmatched ability to hit a target, duck behind a ridge or other terrain features, and then come back to hit another target. Fast, high-flying fighters launched from hundreds of miles away from the target burn through fuel rapidly and typically must return to base after a single pass. Advanced, very expensive drones such as the MQ-9 Reaper offer endurance but lack the Warthog’s raw destructive power and survivability. The A-10, by contrast, can loiter for hours at low altitude, engage multiple IRGC fast boats or a flight of drones, pull back beyond visual range or behind terrain to avoid return fire, and then reenter the engagement minutes later with its gun, rockets, bombs, or even air-to-air missiles. This capability is invaluable in the ongoing, extremely important efforts to break Iran’s control of the Strait of Hormuz.

Of course, the Warthog is far from invulnerable. Yet its unmatched toughness, coupled with its unparalleled ability to use low-level flying and terrain masking and an extensive suite of defensive countermeasures, allows it to operate in environments that would be more perilous for any other aircraft. Twelve hundred pounds of titanium armor form a “bathtub” around the cockpit and critical systems. Double- and even triple-redundant systems enable the plane to get its pilot home after sustaining damage that would be fatal for any other aircraft. Chaff, flares, and electronic warfare jamming pods help it avoid having to demonstrate its toughness. And its legendary low-and-slow flight profile lets pilots hug the earth or duck behind ridges to break line of sight with enemy radars and gunners. Where other aircraft need to remain at high altitude or engage from large standoff distances, the Warthog operates where the fight actually is. And with Iran’s air defenses much degraded, the Warthog’s chances of returning from a mission become all that much better.

Showing up those proclaiming its irrelevance on the “modern battlefield” is nothing new. The A-10 has been delivering stellar performance since it got its first real test in the 1991 Gulf War, where it flew more than 8,000 sorties, destroyed hundreds of Iraqi tanks, and thousands of other vehicles. And it did so while absorbing ground fire that would have downed any other aircraft, helicopter, or drone. In Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom, Joint Terminal Attack Controllers and ground troops repeatedly rated the Warthog as the best close-air-support (CAS) platform available.

Compare that record to the F-35 Lightning II. The Air Force’s prized stealth fighter is a flying computer, but its unreliability, extreme fragility, and terrible low-speed handling characteristics make it incapable of executing the persistent, low-level, high-volume attack missions the Warthog is flying today. When loaded externally with the amount of ordnance the A-10 carries routinely, the F-35 lights up enemy air defense radars and becomes a clumsy aircraft with very little range. It carries a paltry 180 rounds of ammunition for its far less powerful 25mm gun versus the A-10’s 1,150 armor-piercing 30mm rounds. The F-35 lacks the rugged construction, redundant systems, the loitering capability, and the ability to turn terrain and the horizon into features capable of foiling or degrading the effectiveness of air defense systems. Making it even more vulnerable, in a desperate effort to save the F-35 program, the F-35 was stripped of protective safety equipment, such as its ballistic liner and the onboard fire suppression system, to keep it light enough to fly. This makes it one of the most fragile fighters in the sky.

Other Warthog advantages include being able to fly at least twice as many sorties per day and costing less than half as much per flying hour as the F-35. The F-35 is the very antithesis of a close-air-support aircraft, and no amount of budget-busting “Block upgrades” will ever change that.

Retired A-10 pilot Lt. Col. Thomas Norris, with over 3,000 hours in the cockpit, stated, “Unless you have lived and breathed CAS 24/7, you don’t know CAS and are likely to underestimate how hard it is and how important it is.” A veteran Air Force Joint Terminal Attack Controller (JTAC) echoed this in past operations: “I have worked with F-16s, B-1B bombers, F-15s, F-111s, F/A-18s, etc., and no other [close-air-support] plane comes even close to the A-10.” These words continue to ring true as the Warthog loiters over the Gulf, delivering what fast jets and drones cannot.

Yet despite the A-10’s ongoing demonstration of battlefield prowess, the Air Force remains bound and determined to get rid of it. In June of last year, the service accelerated plans to retire all 162 remaining A-10s by the end of fiscal year 2026 (Sept. 30, 2026), but Congress intervened again in the latest NDAA, prohibiting reductions below 103 aircraft through the end of FY26. As it stands, the Air Force is still pushing to achieve full divestment of A-10s prior to 2029. For more than two decades, senior Air Force leaders have undervalued the A-10, even as it continues to show up uber-expensive “tarmac-class” fighters—fighters that spend far more time on the ground being maintained than actually flying.

But the troops on the ground and the JTACs who have called in A-10 strikes under fire know better. And the combat record in 2026 is making the case once again. Sure, drones can provide some types of close air support, but the robust, heavily armed, unjammable A-10, with a moral agent going into harm’s way at the real point of the spear, brings something to the battlefield a drone with its operator safely ensconced far away from the line of contact cannot—and that is precisely why the A-10’s retirement should be canceled for the foreseeable future.

So, as the battle for the Strait of Hormuz ramps up, the “obsolete” A-10 is once again providing bang-for-buck lethality unmatched by any other U.S. aircraft, proving that on the modern battlefield, durability, reliability, and an ability to operate at the line of contact are hard to beat.

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times or ZeroHedge.