Like many organizations, Wiki Education has grappled with generative AI, its impacts, opportunities, and threats, for several years. As an organization that runs large-scale programs to bring new e…
I en vetenskaplig artikel om fisket i Stockholms skärgård bekräftas väldigt mycket av det som vi redan vet om fisket i Östersjön samtidigt som det framkommer en del hel del mycket intressant. Exempelvis verkar det som om framväxten av ett fiske baserat på äganderätt till mark till stor del skedde under 1800-talet fiske.zaramis.se/2026/02/01/in…
Elon Musk's SpaceX has applied to launch one million satellites into Earth's orbit to power artificial intelligence (AI).
The application claims "orbital data centres" are the most cost and energy-efficient way to meet the growing demand for AI computing power.
Traditionally, such centres are large warehouses full of powerful computers that process and store data. Musk's aerospace firm claims processing needs due to the expanding use of AI are already outpacing "terrestrial capabilities".
It would increase the number of SpaceX satellites in orbit drastically. Its existing Starlink network of nearly 10,000 satellites has already been accused of creating congestion in space, which Musk denies.
Elon Musk's SpaceX has applied to launch one million satellites into Earth's orbit to power artificial intelligence (AI).
The application claims "orbital data centres" are the most cost and energy-efficient way to meet the growing demand for AI computing power.
Traditionally, such centres are large warehouses full of powerful computers that process and store data. Musk's aerospace firm claims processing needs due to the expanding use of AI are already outpacing "terrestrial capabilities".
It would increase the number of SpaceX satellites in orbit drastically. Its existing Starlink network of nearly 10,000 satellites has already been accused of creating congestion in space, which Musk denies.
Elon Musk's SpaceX has applied to launch one million satellites into Earth's orbit to power artificial intelligence (AI).
The application claims "orbital data centres" are the most cost and energy-efficient way to meet the growing demand for AI computing power.
Traditionally, such centres are large warehouses full of powerful computers that process and store data. Musk's aerospace firm claims processing needs due to the expanding use of AI are already outpacing "terrestrial capabilities".
It would increase the number of SpaceX satellites in orbit drastically. Its existing Starlink network of nearly 10,000 satellites has already been accused of creating congestion in space, which Musk denies.
Elon Musk's SpaceX applies to launch 1m satellites into orbit
Elon Musk's SpaceX has applied to launch one million satellites into Earth's orbit to power artificial intelligence (AI).
The application claims "orbital data centres" are the most cost and energy-efficient way to meet the growing demand for AI computing power.
Traditionally, such centres are large warehouses full of powerful computers that process and store data. Musk's aerospace firm claims processing needs due to the expanding use of AI are already outpacing "terrestrial capabilities".
It would increase the number of SpaceX satellites in orbit drastically. Its existing Starlink network of nearly 10,000 satellites has already been accused of creating congestion in space, which Musk denies.
This is such a dumb concept and likely exists entirely to wow investors. A single AI server with 8 GPUs produces something like 7000 watts of heat, if not more. And likewise, will require at least that much power. Sure, solar is "free" once you've got the panels in space. The real killer though is dissipating all that heat. Obviously, there's no atmosphere in space to transfer heat to. Your only option is purely IR radiation which is significantly less efficient. To put this in context, the ISS's heat dissipation system can dissipate about 14,000 watts. Ignoring all of the other infra that goes into a data-center, that would be two servers. You add all this up, the mass of the supporting infrastructure would far out-weigh the actual servers. And the economies of satellites and rocket launches comes down to mass.
I remember when download managers were invaluable. Leaving a download running overnight on trailer park internet, only to find in the morning that it had failed. Soul-crushing.
Fem personer har åtalats vid Luleå tingsrätt för grov ekonomisk brottslighet. Bland åtalspunkterna återfinns grov trolöshet mot huvudman, grova penningtvättsbrott, grovt tagande och givande av muta, medhjälp till grovt tagande av muta samt grova bokföringsbrott. blog.zaramis.se/2026/02/01/ata…
Project Genie evades all that and handles these building blocks itself, but remember that it doesn't actually build games, per se. When you ask it to make a clone of Super Mario 64, it will dupe it rather impressively, but all you get is basic movement with a free camera that can look around the map. There are no objectives, and the AI often forgets what it has already generated when filling in gaps.
Honest to shit the rate at which writing written as warning is turning into writing-as-instruction manual is really starting to fuck with my head right here:
I literally read this short story in… I think it was Asimov’s? Could’ve been Analog but I think it was Asimov’s. Circa 1992 or something. Don’t remember much of anything about it other than they were training an AI by shredding and destroying library after library and it was a huge deal.
That was it, though. That was the entire plot.
Kinda wish these fuckers would, idk, watch The Black Hole and ride a giant spaceship into an event horizon right about now, don’t you?
"an entire year of people being ILLEGALLY deported or disappeared" true, state violence against anyone is only okay when it's done legally, with due process and for the good of the national people's
At the same time, for a lot of us that age it was a fundamental step into understanding "Oh. So our adults are fucking idiots" because we had so many allegedly smart people telling us "well. The PATRIOT Act can't be that bad and these are changing times. We need to be able to protect ourselves."
It wasn't until I went to college that I got good at expressing how specifically something that happened when I was in elementary school was a fundamental affront to my autonomy as a human being, and why that was a threat to everyone everywhere all the time. But it was still a seed that grew within me that we are fundamentally not seen by our government as contributors but as resources
Like I've said before, expecting empathy was just silly, these people and their ancestors have been empire-building forever and, if they express any moral values, don't think of them as anything but decorative disinfo cause what they really believe in is "might makes right"... There's always one here and there, the thinking dissidents with moral frameworks like miss Greta, Francesca Albanese and John Brown but not a plurality. Selfish fear? Now that we can trust, lol.
So if I'm the wrong skin color and have past relatives who didn't do anything that made a change, I can't participate in doing something now? If we could find a movement that had all the morality of the progressives while having the right's trait to let anyone join who agrees with the cause, we might have something that works. It seems to be a leftist thing to gatekeep anyone who tries to help.
It's the culture that wasn't reformed, not the skin colour, friend. It's the background attitude, the baseline amorality, the tolerance of violence as long as it doesn't directly affect me, etc. The fact you went straight into skin colour shows your misunderstanding. And no, of course you can, and I'm glad you are, but all of this wouldn't have gotten this bad if the American white folks had had sympathy for those that have been abused since the days of the colonies, and it might just take some white on white violence (another tragedy, ofc) to make people care and that's just the reality of things. You might not like it but the facts are pretty clear.
I mentioned color because of your phrasing, which would lead to that conclusion. It's pretty obvious. And it's not like I even disagree with the points you make, it's just how you made them. Don't blame the reader/listener when you use euphemisms you didn't intend to imply. Say what you mean.
Your previous statement was also a bit on the side of poisoning the well, so no matter what anyone says now, they've already been invalidated as being part of change. Attacking people who may be breaking from ignorance or finally pushed too far as part of the problem is dividing any potential resistance, and that's exactly what the powers that be want us to do: fight amongst ourselves.
American history is dark. As I've gotten older I've learned more and more of things that were simply not talked about, or worse, covered up. That doesn't mean most Americans are guilty of these crimes, or can't try to improve things. But it won't get better if there's so much infighting because of the past that most of us weren't even part of. "Sins of the father" is such a crock of shit.
You misunderstood. It's not "sins of the father" or "white people are evil because it's in their DNA", it's "the current generation who either fervently supported racially divided violence/tolerated it to a great degree until it was their turn to suffer it were raised by the previous ones who did the same", so why are we surprised that, besides the few lefties with a heart, white America for the most part had continued disregarding things like police brutality up until the victim shared their skin colour? Now, why haven't white Americans gone through a complete ideological change after all the sins the country has accumulated? Idk. But what I do know is that it's that attitude, that intellectual laziness and amoral selfcenteredness that's at the core of white American ideology (whatever that is besides "might makes right") that stopped them from being more active through the years, and now it seems like it's too late. It's just a very visible thing and I'm not attacking anyone, especially not people who are just opening their eyes. I'm happy every time anyone stops being a racist, am... show more
You misunderstood. It's not "sins of the father" or "white people are evil because it's in their DNA", it's "the current generation who either fervently supported racially divided violence/tolerated it to a great degree until it was their turn to suffer it were raised by the previous ones who did the same", so why are we surprised that, besides the few lefties with a heart, white America for the most part had continued disregarding things like police brutality up until the victim shared their skin colour? Now, why haven't white Americans gone through a complete ideological change after all the sins the country has accumulated? Idk. But what I do know is that it's that attitude, that intellectual laziness and amoral selfcenteredness that's at the core of white American ideology (whatever that is besides "might makes right") that stopped them from being more active through the years, and now it seems like it's too late. It's just a very visible thing and I'm not attacking anyone, especially not people who are just opening their eyes. I'm happy every time anyone stops being a racist, amoral POS who condones evil as long as it doesn't touch them, of course!
I really think class warfare is far stronger than any racial divide. And that's exactly why there isn't much momentum from any group, white, black, whatever. They've pinned us down for so long ensuring that any individual efforts can be punished. Now... how do you get a unified effort so they can't lock individuals down? That is the question to be answered. General strike? Not if it's some lame Friday and then back to normal. It's got to be a shutdown that's felt by the ones who are the problem, and it has to be outlasted long enough to matter. Can that be done by people living paycheck to paycheck, or by those already missing many weeks of food stamps? The rich hope not.
So sure, there's the inequality of black vs. white. But it's far deeper and planned than that, and this kind of arguing is what they want instead of a shared effort.
The racial divide is an aspect of class warfare though. Specifically in the US, so much of White America was willing to throw away/undermine the welfare and public services that they barely had for a generation just because black and brown people would get access to it too. It's wrong to just skip over that and demand solidarity.
Personally, I think we can embrace people who are late to the game, while also holding space for people who are frustrated that it seems to take a tragedy to activate some members of the populace
You say Well. I would but they mostly disappear like I'm some Stranger to expel ain't real thru fear. Cuz that ain't real even if you're delirious enough to just end up knot being the same. Oh but that returing Martian baby did it. Fly Burger Mic.
Fa epalm
I mean, when was the last time Prickard sang with tab in his hand??
I never get the "we were doing it first" toxicity. Why should it matter why the newcomers were ignorant if they want to join the cause? Why create new enemies just to protect your "pure" reasons? That kind of separationism is exactly what keeps the ones you should focus on in power, and they want it that way. A divided resistance will fail.
Because the majority of “leftists” are exclusively online and their entire lives revolve around internet points derived from having the best and purest ideologies
Where do you think the majority of "rightists", "libertarians", and "liberals" are spending their time nowadays? The mall? Everybody is terminally online, apparently including you.
The PATRIOT Act was a fucking power grab, and obviously was in place in case a crisis came into play. No way something that couldn't be read in that short a time before approval was written that fast.
Its the cop-in-your-brain, which is of course all of the propaganda of the fascists. This is exactly what they want, and their choice rhetoric has worked its way into the leftist spaces to an extent
It really was muddled through while Iraq was being drummed up, too. I remember working a protest in 2003 and there being this talk about DHS implementing fascism. At the time I felt the impending war was more important topic, not quite realizing how interconnected it all was.
It's good that you recognize how interconnected everything is. That's an important piece of the puzzle. These days it's that all the oligarchs are pedophiles, engaged in kidnapping immigrant children, and creating crises to justify those kidnappings. Everything is at the same time a distraction from everything else intended to keep you from uniting on what specifically should be protested, and also a genuine component of the overall mechanism by which we're all tortured
Maybe I'm just mostly in lefty circles, but who the fuck wasn't mad until Renee Goode and Alex Pretti? I've been seeing constant rage against ice for a couple of years now atleast.
No, you're right, plenty were mad before too. There seems to be a new push lately on trying to make this a race issue to divide the left. I've seen a major uptick in this framing lately.
You're right about that! But that's not what I meant.
What I mean is there's a seemingly organized effort to create infighting between those against ICE by attempting to create issues and sow discord. It distracts from the real conversation at hand. It's a common technique to fracture unity on an issue.
Completely agree, but I think with Goode and Pretti it gave our team a good hand to play. Like, "hey, all you All Lives Matter people. Where ya at?" and with Pretti specifically, it's like "Hey, all you 2A folk. Where the fuck ya at?"
I've been outraged and outspoken since the beginning, but these two incidents are really heavy hitting cards to play in order to expose hypocritical fascists. Not that it actually matters because these people are brainwashed mental gymists. But I like to think it at least puts cracks in their foundation. It's caused some amount of infighting, so that's a step in the right direction.
The Sao Paulo Forum condemned the new measure imposed by the US administration against Cuba on Friday, January 30, calling it “absurd coercion.”
[...]
The measure responds to an executive order signed by the US president declaring a national emergency and establishing tariffs on goods from countries that sell or supply oil to Cuba.
This action represents an intensification of the blockade, which has lasted for more than six decades, and is part of Washington’s maximum pressure policy against the island, justified under false pretenses of US national security interests and foreign policy.
Faced with this scenario, the Sao Paulo Forum called on defenders of the sovereignty of nations to act immediately in defense of Cuba.
The Sao Paulo Forum condemned the new measure imposed by the US administration against Cuba on Friday, January 30, calling it “absurd coercion.”
[...]
The measure responds to an executive order signed by the US president declaring a national emergency and establishing tariffs on goods from countries that sell or supply oil to Cuba.
This action represents an intensification of the blockade, which has lasted for more than six decades, and is part of Washington’s maximum pressure policy against the island, justified under false pretenses of US national security interests and foreign policy.
Faced with this scenario, the Sao Paulo Forum called on defenders of the sovereignty of nations to act immediately in defense of Cuba.
The Sao Paulo Forum condemned the new measure imposed by the US administration against Cuba on Friday, January 30, calling it “absurd coercion.”
[...]
The measure responds to an executive order signed by the US president declaring a national emergency and establishing tariffs on goods from countries that sell or supply oil to Cuba.
This action represents an intensification of the blockade, which has lasted for more than six decades, and is part of Washington’s maximum pressure policy against the island, justified under false pretenses of US national security interests and foreign policy.
Faced with this scenario, the Sao Paulo Forum called on defenders of the sovereignty of nations to act immediately in defense of Cuba.
Sao Paulo Forum Calls for Defense of Cuba Against Trump’s Coercion
Snip:
The Sao Paulo Forum condemned the new measure imposed by the US administration against Cuba on Friday, January 30, calling it “absurd coercion.”
[...]
The measure responds to an executive order signed by the US president declaring a national emergency and establishing tariffs on goods from countries that sell or supply oil to Cuba.
This action represents an intensification of the blockade, which has lasted for more than six decades, and is part of Washington’s maximum pressure policy against the island, justified under false pretenses of US national security interests and foreign policy.
Faced with this scenario, the Sao Paulo Forum called on defenders of the sovereignty of nations to act immediately in defense of Cuba.
Iran will defend its people decisively if it is pushed to war, reiterated Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian on Thursday, January 29, after American President Donald Trump’s repeated ultimatums and threats of military strikes in the country.
“If the American side is truly seeking negotiations and genuine diplomacy it must abandon provocative and escalatory measures and demonstrate in practice its commitment to the path of dialogue,” Pezeshkian told his Pakistani counterparts, Shehbaz Sherif and Qatari Sheikh Hamad Bin Thani, during separate phone conversations.
After softening his initial threats of military strikes over the Iranian crackdown of nationwide protests earlier, Trump renewed his threats against Iran this week despite widespread opposition to any such move expressed by the leaders from the Middle East region over the fears of wider regional consequences.
In a social media post
... show more
Iran will defend its people decisively if it is pushed to war, reiterated Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian on Thursday, January 29, after American President Donald Trump’s repeated ultimatums and threats of military strikes in the country.
“If the American side is truly seeking negotiations and genuine diplomacy it must abandon provocative and escalatory measures and demonstrate in practice its commitment to the path of dialogue,” Pezeshkian told his Pakistani counterparts, Shehbaz Sherif and Qatari Sheikh Hamad Bin Thani, during separate phone conversations.
After softening his initial threats of military strikes over the Iranian crackdown of nationwide protests earlier, Trump renewed his threats against Iran this week despite widespread opposition to any such move expressed by the leaders from the Middle East region over the fears of wider regional consequences.
In a social media post on Wednesday, Trump asked Iran to submit to his demand and make a deal on “no nuclear weapons”, immediately claiming “time is running out”. He threatened that if Iran fails to comply with the demands the strikes this time would be “far worse” than the strikes in June.
Iran responded to the threats made by Trump warning that its responses to aggression inside the country would not be limited and all American assets in the region, including the warships and Israel, would be targeted.
No talks under threats of war
During a press conference on Thursday, Trump repeated his threats while also expressing his willingness to talk.
“We have a lot of very big, very powerful ships sailing to the region right now. Hopefully, we don’t have to use it,” Reuters reported Trump telling the press on Thursday.
Iran has maintained, for years now, that it has no intention to have nuclear weapons and its nuclear program is for peaceful civilian purposes only. It has also expressed its openness for dialogue on the issue, however, refusing to talk under threats of war.
Pezeshkian reiterated on Thursday that his country believes in “dignified diplomacy based on international laws, mutual respect, avoidance of threats and coercion and pursuit of win-win outcomes.”
Changes of a successful diplomacy between Iran and the US have also gone down since the inclusion of fresh demands. Apart from asking Iran to denounce any nuclear ambitions the Trump administration also wants it to agree to restrictions on its ballistic missiles programs and end all support to its regional allies identified as “proxies”.
Regional diplomacy
After Pezeshkian’s conversations with his Pakistani counterpart and Qatari Sheikh, similar phone conversations were held by Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi with his counterparts in several other countries in the region and neighborhood, including Turkey and Egypt on Thursday and Friday.
The US has military bases in most of these countries. Iran has declared that in case it is attacked these bases would become legitimate targets of Iranian retaliation.
Several of these countries including Saudi Arabia and UAE have already declared they will not allow their territories to be used in any military strike against Iran.
Meanwhile, Araghchi traveled to Turkey to discuss the issue with his Turkish counterpart, Hakan Fidan, and Recep Tayyip Erdoğan on Friday.
Most of the countries in the region, including Turkey have opposed possible US military aggression against Iran claiming that would have larger regional consequences. They have called for political resolution of differences instead.
EU sanctions
Meanwhile, close US ally European Union (EU) imposed fresh sanctions on several Iranian officials and designated its Islamic Revolutionary Guard’s Corp as a “terrorist organization” on Thursday.
The EU accused the individuals and IRGC of “serious human rights violations” and “killing thousands of protesters” during the recent nationwide protests.
Iran has called the EU’s move “spiteful, hasty and desperate” and “legally inconsistent with international law.”
Over 3,100 Iranians, including civilians and security forces, were killed during weeks-long protests which began over rising economic hardships in the country. Iran claims the protests were hijacked by foreign elements backed by Israel and the US seeking regime change in the country.
Reacting to the EU’s sanctions on Thursday, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, speaker of the Iranian parliament questioned their understanding of terrorism, claiming the IRGC is “one of the strongest and most effective anti-terrorism forces in the world.”
He also claimed that “only those who stand with terrorism deny the IRGC’s record in combating Daesh” or ISIS as it is commonly known and warned that support of terrorism will bring nothing but regret to the European countries, IRNAreported.
The EU has already imposed several sanctions on Iranian entities over Iran’s alleged violations of, now expired nuclear deal, its alleged supply of weapons to Russia and its human rights violations.
Iran will defend its people decisively if it is pushed to war, reiterated Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian on Thursday, January 29, after American President Donald Trump’s repeated ultimatums and threats of military strikes in the country.
“If the American side is truly seeking negotiations and genuine diplomacy it must abandon provocative and escalatory measures and demonstrate in practice its commitment to the path of dialogue,” Pezeshkian told his Pakistani counterparts, Shehbaz Sherif and Qatari Sheikh Hamad Bin Thani, during separate phone conversations.
After softening his initial threats of military strikes over the Iranian crackdown of nationwide protests earlier, Trump renewed his threats against Iran this week despit
Iran will defend its people decisively if it is pushed to war, reiterated Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian on Thursday, January 29, after American President Donald Trump’s repeated ultimatums and threats of military strikes in the country.
“If the American side is truly seeking negotiations and genuine diplomacy it must abandon provocative and escalatory measures and demonstrate in practice its commitment to the path of dialogue,” Pezeshkian told his Pakistani counterparts, Shehbaz Sherif and Qatari Sheikh Hamad Bin Thani, during separate phone conversations.
After softening his initial threats of military strikes over the Iranian crackdown of nationwide protests earlier, Trump renewed his threats against Iran this week despite widespread opposition to any such move expressed by the leaders from the Middle East region over the fears of wider regional consequences.
In a social media post on Wednesday, Trump asked Iran to submit to his demand and make a deal on “no nuclear weapons”, immediately claiming “time is running out”. He threatened that if Iran fails to comply with the demands the strikes this time would be “far worse” than the strikes in June.
Iran responded to the threats made by Trump warning that its responses to aggression inside the country would not be limited and all American assets in the region, including the warships and Israel, would be targeted.
No talks under threats of war
During a press conference on Thursday, Trump repeated his threats while also expressing his willingness to talk.
“We have a lot of very big, very powerful ships sailing to the region right now. Hopefully, we don’t have to use it,” Reuters reported Trump telling the press on Thursday.
Iran has maintained, for years now, that it has no intention to have nuclear weapons and its nuclear program is for peaceful civilian purposes only. It has also expressed its openness for dialogue on the issue, however, refusing to talk under threats of war.
Pezeshkian reiterated on Thursday that his country believes in “dignified diplomacy based on international laws, mutual respect, avoidance of threats and coercion and pursuit of win-win outcomes.”
Changes of a successful diplomacy between Iran and the US have also gone down since the inclusion of fresh demands. Apart from asking Iran to denounce any nuclear ambitions the Trump administration also wants it to agree to restrictions on its ballistic missiles programs and end all support to its regional allies identified as “proxies”.
Regional diplomacy
After Pezeshkian’s conversations with his Pakistani counterpart and Qatari Sheikh, similar phone conversations were held by Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi with his counterparts in several other countries in the region and neighborhood, including Turkey and Egypt on Thursday and Friday.
The US has military bases in most of these countries. Iran has declared that in case it is attacked these bases would become legitimate targets of Iranian retaliation.
Several of these countries including Saudi Arabia and UAE have already declared they will not allow their territories to be used in any military strike against Iran.
Meanwhile, Araghchi traveled to Turkey to discuss the issue with his Turkish counterpart, Hakan Fidan, and Recep Tayyip Erdoğan on Friday.
Most of the countries in the region, including Turkey have opposed possible US military aggression against Iran claiming that would have larger regional consequences. They have called for political resolution of differences instead.
EU sanctions
Meanwhile, close US ally European Union (EU) imposed fresh sanctions on several Iranian officials and designated its Islamic Revolutionary Guard’s Corp as a “terrorist organization” on Thursday.
The EU accused the individuals and IRGC of “serious human rights violations” and “killing thousands of protesters” during the recent nationwide protests.
Iran has called the EU’s move “spiteful, hasty and desperate” and “legally inconsistent with international law.”
Over 3,100 Iranians, including civilians and security forces, were killed during weeks-long protests which began over rising economic hardships in the country. Iran claims the protests were hijacked by foreign elements backed by Israel and the US seeking regime change in the country.
Reacting to the EU’s sanctions on Thursday, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, speaker of the Iranian parliament questioned their understanding of terrorism, claiming the IRGC is “one of the strongest and most effective anti-terrorism forces in the world.”
He also claimed that “only those who stand with terrorism deny the IRGC’s record in combating Daesh” or ISIS as it is commonly known and warned that support of terrorism will bring nothing but regret to the European countries, IRNAreported.
The EU has already imposed several sanctions on Iranian entities over Iran’s alleged violations of, now expired nuclear deal, its alleged supply of weapons to Russia and its human rights violations.
Iran says if attacked militarily, its response will not be “limited”
Iran will defend its people decisively if it is pushed to war, reiterated Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian on Thursday, January 29, after American President Donald Trump’s repeated ultimatums and threats of military strikes in the country.
“If the American side is truly seeking negotiations and genuine diplomacy it must abandon provocative and escalatory measures and demonstrate in practice its commitment to the path of dialogue,” Pezeshkian told his Pakistani counterparts, Shehbaz Sherif and Qatari Sheikh Hamad Bin Thani, during separate phone conversations.
After softening his initial threats of military strikes over the Iranian crackdown of nationwide protests earlier, Trump renewed his threats against Iran this week despite widespread opposition to any such move expressed by the leaders from the Middle East region over the fears of wider regional consequences.
In a social media post on Wednesday, Trump asked Iran to submit to his demand and make a deal on “no nuclear weapons”, immediately claiming “time is running out”. He threatened that if Iran fails to comply with the demands the strikes this time would be “far worse” than the strikes in June.
Iran responded to the threats made by Trump warning that its responses to aggression inside the country would not be limited and all American assets in the region, including the warships and Israel, would be targeted.
No talks under threats of war
During a press conference on Thursday, Trump repeated his threats while also expressing his willingness to talk.
“We have a lot of very big, very powerful ships sailing to the region right now. Hopefully, we don’t have to use it,” Reuters reported Trump telling the press on Thursday.
Iran has maintained, for years now, that it has no intention to have nuclear weapons and its nuclear program is for peaceful civilian purposes only. It has also expressed its openness for dialogue on the issue, however, refusing to talk under threats of war.
Pezeshkian reiterated on Thursday that his country believes in “dignified diplomacy based on international laws, mutual respect, avoidance of threats and coercion and pursuit of win-win outcomes.”
Changes of a successful diplomacy between Iran and the US have also gone down since the inclusion of fresh demands. Apart from asking Iran to denounce any nuclear ambitions the Trump administration also wants it to agree to restrictions on its ballistic missiles programs and end all support to its regional allies identified as “proxies”.
Regional diplomacy
After Pezeshkian’s conversations with his Pakistani counterpart and Qatari Sheikh, similar phone conversations were held by Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi with his counterparts in several other countries in the region and neighborhood, including Turkey and Egypt on Thursday and Friday.
The US has military bases in most of these countries. Iran has declared that in case it is attacked these bases would become legitimate targets of Iranian retaliation.
Several of these countries including Saudi Arabia and UAE have already declared they will not allow their territories to be used in any military strike against Iran.
Meanwhile, Araghchi traveled to Turkey to discuss the issue with his Turkish counterpart, Hakan Fidan, and Recep Tayyip Erdoğan on Friday.
Most of the countries in the region, including Turkey have opposed possible US military aggression against Iran claiming that would have larger regional consequences. They have called for political resolution of differences instead.
EU sanctions
Meanwhile, close US ally European Union (EU) imposed fresh sanctions on several Iranian officials and designated its Islamic Revolutionary Guard’s Corp as a “terrorist organization” on Thursday.
The EU accused the individuals and IRGC of “serious human rights violations” and “killing thousands of protesters” during the recent nationwide protests.
Iran has called the EU’s move “spiteful, hasty and desperate” and “legally inconsistent with international law.”
Over 3,100 Iranians, including civilians and security forces, were killed during weeks-long protests which began over rising economic hardships in the country. Iran claims the protests were hijacked by foreign elements backed by Israel and the US seeking regime change in the country.
Reacting to the EU’s sanctions on Thursday, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, speaker of the Iranian parliament questioned their understanding of terrorism, claiming the IRGC is “one of the strongest and most effective anti-terrorism forces in the world.”
He also claimed that “only those who stand with terrorism deny the IRGC’s record in combating Daesh” or ISIS as it is commonly known and warned that support of terrorism will bring nothing but regret to the European countries, IRNAreported.
The EU has already imposed several sanctions on Iranian entities over Iran’s alleged violations of, now expired nuclear deal, its alleged supply of weapons to Russia and its human rights violations.
Iran will defend its people decisively if it is pushed to war, reiterated Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian on Thursday, January 29, after American President Donald Trump’s repeated ultimatums and threats of military strikes in the country.
“If the American side is truly seeking negotiations and genuine diplomacy it must abandon provocative and escalatory measures and demonstrate in practice its commitment to the path of dialogue,” Pezeshkian told his Pakistani counterparts, Shehbaz Sherif and Qatari Sheikh Hamad Bin Thani, during separate phone conversations.
Iran will defend its people decisively if it is pushed to war, reiterated Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian on Thursday, January 29, after American President Donald Trump’s repeated ultimatums and threats of military strikes in the country.
“If the American side is truly seeking negotiations and genuine diplomacy it must abandon provocative and escalatory measures and demonstrate in practice its commitment to the path of dialogue,” Pezeshkian told his Pakistani counterparts, Shehbaz Sherif and Qatari Sheikh Hamad Bin Thani, during separate phone conversations.
After softening his initial threats of military strikes over the Iranian crackdown of nationwide protests earlier, Trump renewed his threats against Iran this week despite widespread opposition to any such move expressed by the leaders from the Middle East region over the fears of wider regional consequences.
In a social media post on Wednesday, Trump asked Iran to submit to his demand and make a deal on “no nuclear weapons”, immediately claiming “time is running out”. He threatened that if Iran fails to comply with the demands the strikes this time would be “far worse” than the strikes in June.
Iran responded to the threats made by Trump warning that its responses to aggression inside the country would not be limited and all American assets in the region, including the warships and Israel, would be targeted.
No talks under threats of war
During a press conference on Thursday, Trump repeated his threats while also expressing his willingness to talk.
“We have a lot of very big, very powerful ships sailing to the region right now. Hopefully, we don’t have to use it,” Reuters reported Trump telling the press on Thursday.
Iran has maintained, for years now, that it has no intention to have nuclear weapons and its nuclear program is for peaceful civilian purposes only. It has also expressed its openness for dialogue on the issue, however, refusing to talk under threats of war.
Pezeshkian reiterated on Thursday that his country believes in “dignified diplomacy based on international laws, mutual respect, avoidance of threats and coercion and pursuit of win-win outcomes.”
Changes of a successful diplomacy between Iran and the US have also gone down since the inclusion of fresh demands. Apart from asking Iran to denounce any nuclear ambitions the Trump administration also wants it to agree to restrictions on its ballistic missiles programs and end all support to its regional allies identified as “proxies”.
Regional diplomacy
After Pezeshkian’s conversations with his Pakistani counterpart and Qatari Sheikh, similar phone conversations were held by Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi with his counterparts in several other countries in the region and neighborhood, including Turkey and Egypt on Thursday and Friday.
The US has military bases in most of these countries. Iran has declared that in case it is attacked these bases would become legitimate targets of Iranian retaliation.
Several of these countries including Saudi Arabia and UAE have already declared they will not allow their territories to be used in any military strike against Iran.
Meanwhile, Araghchi traveled to Turkey to discuss the issue with his Turkish counterpart, Hakan Fidan, and Recep Tayyip Erdoğan on Friday.
Most of the countries in the region, including Turkey have opposed possible US military aggression against Iran claiming that would have larger regional consequences. They have called for political resolution of differences instead.
EU sanctions
Meanwhile, close US ally European Union (EU) imposed fresh sanctions on several Iranian officials and designated its Islamic Revolutionary Guard’s Corp as a “terrorist organization” on Thursday.
The EU accused the individuals and IRGC of “serious human rights violations” and “killing thousands of protesters” during the recent nationwide protests.
Iran has called the EU’s move “spiteful, hasty and desperate” and “legally inconsistent with international law.”
Over 3,100 Iranians, including civilians and security forces, were killed during weeks-long protests which began over rising economic hardships in the country. Iran claims the protests were hijacked by foreign elements backed by Israel and the US seeking regime change in the country.
Reacting to the EU’s sanctions on Thursday, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, speaker of the Iranian parliament questioned their understanding of terrorism, claiming the IRGC is “one of the strongest and most effective anti-terrorism forces in the world.”
He also claimed that “only those who stand with terrorism deny the IRGC’s record in combating Daesh” or ISIS as it is commonly known and warned that support of terrorism will bring nothing but regret to the European countries, IRNAreported.
The EU has already imposed several sanctions on Iranian entities over Iran’s alleged violations of, now expired nuclear deal, its alleged supply of weapons to Russia and its human rights violations.
Iran will defend its people decisively if it is pushed to war, reiterated Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian on Thursday, January 29, after American President Donald Trump’s repeated ultimatums and threats of military strikes in the country.
“If the American side is truly seeking negotiations and genuine diplomacy it must abandon provocative and escalatory measures and demonstrate in practice its commitment to the path of dialogue,” Pezeshkian told his Pakistani counterparts, Shehbaz Sherif and Qatari Sheikh Hamad Bin Thani, during separate phone conversations.
After softening his initial threats of military strikes over the Iranian crackdown of nationwide protests earlier, Trump renewed his threats against Iran this week despite widespread opposition to any such move expressed by the leaders from the Middle East region over the fears of wider regional consequences.
In a social media post on Wednesday, Trump asked Iran to submit to his demand and make a deal on “no nuclear weapons”, immediately claiming “time is running out”. He threatened that if Iran fails to comply with the demands the strikes this time would be “far worse” than the strikes in June.
Iran responded to the threats made by Trump warning that its responses to aggression inside the country would not be limited and all American assets in the region, including the warships and Israel, would be targeted.
No talks under threats of war
During a press conference on Thursday, Trump repeated his threats while also expressing his willingness to talk.
“We have a lot of very big, very powerful ships sailing to the region right now. Hopefully, we don’t have to use it,” Reuters reported Trump telling the press on Thursday.
Iran has maintained, for years now, that it has no intention to have nuclear weapons and its nuclear program is for peaceful civilian purposes only. It has also expressed its openness for dialogue on the issue, however, refusing to talk under threats of war.
Pezeshkian reiterated on Thursday that his country believes in “dignified diplomacy based on international laws, mutual respect, avoidance of threats and coercion and pursuit of win-win outcomes.”
Changes of a successful diplomacy between Iran and the US have also gone down since the inclusion of fresh demands. Apart from asking Iran to denounce any nuclear ambitions the Trump administration also wants it to agree to restrictions on its ballistic missiles programs and end all support to its regional allies identified as “proxies”.
Regional diplomacy
After Pezeshkian’s conversations with his Pakistani counterpart and Qatari Sheikh, similar phone conversations were held by Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi with his counterparts in several other countries in the region and neighborhood, including Turkey and Egypt on Thursday and Friday.
The US has military bases in most of these countries. Iran has declared that in case it is attacked these bases would become legitimate targets of Iranian retaliation.
Several of these countries including Saudi Arabia and UAE have already declared they will not allow their territories to be used in any military strike against Iran.
Meanwhile, Araghchi traveled to Turkey to discuss the issue with his Turkish counterpart, Hakan Fidan, and Recep Tayyip Erdoğan on Friday.
Most of the countries in the region, including Turkey have opposed possible US military aggression against Iran claiming that would have larger regional consequences. They have called for political resolution of differences instead.
EU sanctions
Meanwhile, close US ally European Union (EU) imposed fresh sanctions on several Iranian officials and designated its Islamic Revolutionary Guard’s Corp as a “terrorist organization” on Thursday.
The EU accused the individuals and IRGC of “serious human rights violations” and “killing thousands of protesters” during the recent nationwide protests.
Iran has called the EU’s move “spiteful, hasty and desperate” and “legally inconsistent with international law.”
Over 3,100 Iranians, including civilians and security forces, were killed during weeks-long protests which began over rising economic hardships in the country. Iran claims the protests were hijacked by foreign elements backed by Israel and the US seeking regime change in the country.
Reacting to the EU’s sanctions on Thursday, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, speaker of the Iranian parliament questioned their understanding of terrorism, claiming the IRGC is “one of the strongest and most effective anti-terrorism forces in the world.”
He also claimed that “only those who stand with terrorism deny the IRGC’s record in combating Daesh” or ISIS as it is commonly known and warned that support of terrorism will bring nothing but regret to the European countries, IRNAreported.
The EU has already imposed several sanctions on Iranian entities over Iran’s alleged violations of, now expired nuclear deal, its alleged supply of weapons to Russia and its human rights violations.
How does this affect those nuclear deals where the price has been guaranteed for many years? We have a couple in UK. One of which isn’t even open yet. The price per KWh was set before it was built.
It would be deliciously ironic if solar ended up subsidising mothballed nuclear plants.
Well yes, so the taxpayer will subsidise everyone’s electric bill to pay the extortionate rate that was agreed upon.
The way China is going it could soon be so cheap that people will only pay a standing charge, and the electricity could actually be free. Like they promised with nuclear in the 60s.
Caracas, January 30, 2026 (venezuelanalysis.com) – The Venezuelan National Assembly has approved a sweeping reform of the country’s 2001 Hydrocarbon Law that rolls back the state’s role in the energy sector in favor of private capital.
Legislators unanimously endorsed the bill at its second discussion on Thursday, with only opposition deputy Henrique Capriles abstaining. The legislative overhaul follows years of US sanctions against the Venezuelan oil industry and a naval blockade imposed in December.
National Assembly President Jorge Rodríguez hailed the vote a “historic day” and claimed the new bill will lead oil production to “skyrocket.”
“The reform will make the oil sector much more competitive for national and foreign corporations to extract crude,” he told reporters. “We are implementing mechanisms th
... show more
Caracas, January 30, 2026 (venezuelanalysis.com) – The Venezuelan National Assembly has approved a sweeping reform of the country’s 2001 Hydrocarbon Law that rolls back the state’s role in the energy sector in favor of private capital.
Legislators unanimously endorsed the bill at its second discussion on Thursday, with only opposition deputy Henrique Capriles abstaining. The legislative overhaul follows years of US sanctions against the Venezuelan oil industry and a naval blockade imposed in December.
National Assembly President Jorge Rodríguez hailed the vote a “historic day” and claimed the new bill will lead oil production to “skyrocket.”
“The reform will make the oil sector much more competitive for national and foreign corporations to extract crude,” he told reporters. “We are implementing mechanisms that have proven very successful.”
Venezuelan Acting President Delcy Rodríguez signed and enacted the law after the parliamentary session, claiming that the industry will be guided by “the best international practices” and undertake a “historic leap forward.”
Former President Hugo Chávez revamped the country’s oil legislation in 2001 and introduced further reforms in 2006 and 2007 to assert the Venezuelan state’s primacy over the industry. Policies included a mandatory stakeholding majority for state oil company PDVSA in joint ventures, PDVSA control over operations and sales, and increased royalties and income tax to 30 and 50 percent, respectively. Increased oil revenues bankrolled the Venezuelan government’s expanded social programs in the 2000s.
The text approved during Thursday’s legislative session, following meetings between Venezuelan authorities and oil executives, went further than the draft preliminarily endorsed one week earlier.
The final version of the legislation establishes 30 percent as an upper bound for royalties, with the Venezuelan government given the discretionary power to determine the rate for each project. A 33 percent extraction tax in the present law was scrapped in favor of an “integrated hydrocarbon tax” to be set by the executive with a 15 percent limit.
Similarly, the Venezuelan government can reduce income taxes for companies involved in oil activities while also granting several other fiscal exemptions. The bill cites the “need to ensure international competitiveness” as a factor to be considered when decreasing royalty and tax demands for private corporations.
The reform additionally grants operational and sales control to minority partners and private contractors. PDVSA can furthermore lease out oilfields and projects in exchange for a fixed portion of extracted crude. The new legislation likewise allows disputes to be settled by outside arbitration instances.
Thursday’s legislative reform was immediately followed by a US Treasury general license allowing US corporations to re-engage with the Venezuelan oil sector.
General License 46 (GL46) authorizes US firms to purchase and market Venezuelan crude while demanding that contracts be subjected to US jurisdiction so potential disputes are referred to US courts. The license bars transactions with companies from Russia, Iran, North Korea, or Cuba. Concerning China, it only blocks dealings with Venezuelan joint ventures with Chinese involvement.
Economist Francisco Rodríguez pointed out that the sanctions waiver does not explicitly allow for production or investment and that companies would require an additional license before signing contracts with Venezuelan authorities.
GL46 also mandates that payments to blocked agents, including PDVSA, be made to the US Foreign Government Deposit Funds or another account defined by the US Treasury Department.
Following the January 3 military strikes and kidnapping of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, the Trump administration has vowed to take control of the Venezuelan oil industry by administering crude transactions. Proceeds from initial sales have been deposited in US-run bank accounts in Qatar, with a portion rerouted to Caracas for forex injections run by private banks. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio vowed that the resources will begin to be channeled to US Treasury accounts in the near future.
In a press conference on Friday, Trump said his administration is “very happy” with the actions of Venezuelan authorities and would soon invite other countries to get involved in the Caribbean nation’s oil industry. Rubio had previously argued that Caracas “deserved credit” for the oil reform that “eradicates Chávez-era restrictions on private investments.”
Despite the White House’s calls for substantial investment, Western oil corporations have expressed reservations over major projects in the Venezuelan energy sector. Chevron, the largest US company operating in the country, stated that it is looking to fund increased production with revenues from oil sales as opposed to new capital commitments.
Since 2017, Venezuela’s oil industry has been under wide-reaching US unilateral coercive measures, including financial sanctions and an export embargo, in an effort to strangle the country’s most important revenue source. The US Treasury Department has also levied and threatened secondary sanctions against third-country companies to deter involvement in the Venezuelan petroleum sector.
Caracas, January 30, 2026 (venezuelanalysis.com) – The Venezuelan National Assembly has approved a sweeping reform of the country’s 2001 Hydrocarbon Law that rolls back the state’s role in the energy sector in favor of private capital.
Legislators unanimously endorsed the bill at its second discussion on Thursday, with only opposition deputy Henrique Capriles abstaining. The legislative overhaul follows years of US sanctions against the Venezuelan oil industry and a naval blockade imposed in December.
National Assembly President Jorge Rodríguez hailed the vote a “historic day” and claimed the new bill will lead oil production to “skyrocket.”
Caracas, January 30, 2026 (venezuelanalysis.com) – The Venezuelan National Assembly has approved a sweeping reform of the country’s 2001 Hydrocarbon Law that rolls back the state’s role in the energy sector in favor of private capital.
Legislators unanimously endorsed the bill at its second discussion on Thursday, with only opposition deputy Henrique Capriles abstaining. The legislative overhaul follows years of US sanctions against the Venezuelan oil industry and a naval blockade imposed in December.
National Assembly President Jorge Rodríguez hailed the vote a “historic day” and claimed the new bill will lead oil production to “skyrocket.”
“The reform will make the oil sector much more competitive for national and foreign corporations to extract crude,” he told reporters. “We are implementing mechanisms that have proven very successful.”
Venezuelan Acting President Delcy Rodríguez signed and enacted the law after the parliamentary session, claiming that the industry will be guided by “the best international practices” and undertake a “historic leap forward.”
Former President Hugo Chávez revamped the country’s oil legislation in 2001 and introduced further reforms in 2006 and 2007 to assert the Venezuelan state’s primacy over the industry. Policies included a mandatory stakeholding majority for state oil company PDVSA in joint ventures, PDVSA control over operations and sales, and increased royalties and income tax to 30 and 50 percent, respectively. Increased oil revenues bankrolled the Venezuelan government’s expanded social programs in the 2000s.
The text approved during Thursday’s legislative session, following meetings between Venezuelan authorities and oil executives, went further than the draft preliminarily endorsed one week earlier.
The final version of the legislation establishes 30 percent as an upper bound for royalties, with the Venezuelan government given the discretionary power to determine the rate for each project. A 33 percent extraction tax in the present law was scrapped in favor of an “integrated hydrocarbon tax” to be set by the executive with a 15 percent limit.
Similarly, the Venezuelan government can reduce income taxes for companies involved in oil activities while also granting several other fiscal exemptions. The bill cites the “need to ensure international competitiveness” as a factor to be considered when decreasing royalty and tax demands for private corporations.
The reform additionally grants operational and sales control to minority partners and private contractors. PDVSA can furthermore lease out oilfields and projects in exchange for a fixed portion of extracted crude. The new legislation likewise allows disputes to be settled by outside arbitration instances.
Thursday’s legislative reform was immediately followed by a US Treasury general license allowing US corporations to re-engage with the Venezuelan oil sector.
General License 46 (GL46) authorizes US firms to purchase and market Venezuelan crude while demanding that contracts be subjected to US jurisdiction so potential disputes are referred to US courts. The license bars transactions with companies from Russia, Iran, North Korea, or Cuba. Concerning China, it only blocks dealings with Venezuelan joint ventures with Chinese involvement.
Economist Francisco Rodríguez pointed out that the sanctions waiver does not explicitly allow for production or investment and that companies would require an additional license before signing contracts with Venezuelan authorities.
GL46 also mandates that payments to blocked agents, including PDVSA, be made to the US Foreign Government Deposit Funds or another account defined by the US Treasury Department.
Following the January 3 military strikes and kidnapping of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, the Trump administration has vowed to take control of the Venezuelan oil industry by administering crude transactions. Proceeds from initial sales have been deposited in US-run bank accounts in Qatar, with a portion rerouted to Caracas for forex injections run by private banks. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio vowed that the resources will begin to be channeled to US Treasury accounts in the near future.
In a press conference on Friday, Trump said his administration is “very happy” with the actions of Venezuelan authorities and would soon invite other countries to get involved in the Caribbean nation’s oil industry. Rubio had previously argued that Caracas “deserved credit” for the oil reform that “eradicates Chávez-era restrictions on private investments.”
Despite the White House’s calls for substantial investment, Western oil corporations have expressed reservations over major projects in the Venezuelan energy sector. Chevron, the largest US company operating in the country, stated that it is looking to fund increased production with revenues from oil sales as opposed to new capital commitments.
Since 2017, Venezuela’s oil industry has been under wide-reaching US unilateral coercive measures, including financial sanctions and an export embargo, in an effort to strangle the country’s most important revenue source. The US Treasury Department has also levied and threatened secondary sanctions against third-country companies to deter involvement in the Venezuelan petroleum sector.
Venezuela Approves Pro-Business Oil Reform as Trump Issues New Sanctions Waiver
Caracas, January 30, 2026 (venezuelanalysis.com) – The Venezuelan National Assembly has approved a sweeping reform of the country’s 2001 Hydrocarbon Law that rolls back the state’s role in the energy sector in favor of private capital.
Legislators unanimously endorsed the bill at its second discussion on Thursday, with only opposition deputy Henrique Capriles abstaining. The legislative overhaul follows years of US sanctions against the Venezuelan oil industry and a naval blockade imposed in December.
National Assembly President Jorge Rodríguez hailed the vote a “historic day” and claimed the new bill will lead oil production to “skyrocket.”
“The reform will make the oil sector much more competitive for national and foreign corporations to extract crude,” he told reporters. “We are implementing mechanisms that have proven very successful.”
Venezuelan Acting President Delcy Rodríguez signed and enacted the law after the parliamentary session, claiming that the industry will be guided by “the best international practices” and undertake a “historic leap forward.”
Former President Hugo Chávez revamped the country’s oil legislation in 2001 and introduced further reforms in 2006 and 2007 to assert the Venezuelan state’s primacy over the industry. Policies included a mandatory stakeholding majority for state oil company PDVSA in joint ventures, PDVSA control over operations and sales, and increased royalties and income tax to 30 and 50 percent, respectively. Increased oil revenues bankrolled the Venezuelan government’s expanded social programs in the 2000s.
The text approved during Thursday’s legislative session, following meetings between Venezuelan authorities and oil executives, went further than the draft preliminarily endorsed one week earlier.
The final version of the legislation establishes 30 percent as an upper bound for royalties, with the Venezuelan government given the discretionary power to determine the rate for each project. A 33 percent extraction tax in the present law was scrapped in favor of an “integrated hydrocarbon tax” to be set by the executive with a 15 percent limit.
Similarly, the Venezuelan government can reduce income taxes for companies involved in oil activities while also granting several other fiscal exemptions. The bill cites the “need to ensure international competitiveness” as a factor to be considered when decreasing royalty and tax demands for private corporations.
The reform additionally grants operational and sales control to minority partners and private contractors. PDVSA can furthermore lease out oilfields and projects in exchange for a fixed portion of extracted crude. The new legislation likewise allows disputes to be settled by outside arbitration instances.
Thursday’s legislative reform was immediately followed by a US Treasury general license allowing US corporations to re-engage with the Venezuelan oil sector.
General License 46 (GL46) authorizes US firms to purchase and market Venezuelan crude while demanding that contracts be subjected to US jurisdiction so potential disputes are referred to US courts. The license bars transactions with companies from Russia, Iran, North Korea, or Cuba. Concerning China, it only blocks dealings with Venezuelan joint ventures with Chinese involvement.
Economist Francisco Rodríguez pointed out that the sanctions waiver does not explicitly allow for production or investment and that companies would require an additional license before signing contracts with Venezuelan authorities.
GL46 also mandates that payments to blocked agents, including PDVSA, be made to the US Foreign Government Deposit Funds or another account defined by the US Treasury Department.
Following the January 3 military strikes and kidnapping of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, the Trump administration has vowed to take control of the Venezuelan oil industry by administering crude transactions. Proceeds from initial sales have been deposited in US-run bank accounts in Qatar, with a portion rerouted to Caracas for forex injections run by private banks. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio vowed that the resources will begin to be channeled to US Treasury accounts in the near future.
In a press conference on Friday, Trump said his administration is “very happy” with the actions of Venezuelan authorities and would soon invite other countries to get involved in the Caribbean nation’s oil industry. Rubio had previously argued that Caracas “deserved credit” for the oil reform that “eradicates Chávez-era restrictions on private investments.”
Despite the White House’s calls for substantial investment, Western oil corporations have expressed reservations over major projects in the Venezuelan energy sector. Chevron, the largest US company operating in the country, stated that it is looking to fund increased production with revenues from oil sales as opposed to new capital commitments.
Since 2017, Venezuela’s oil industry has been under wide-reaching US unilateral coercive measures, including financial sanctions and an export embargo, in an effort to strangle the country’s most important revenue source. The US Treasury Department has also levied and threatened secondary sanctions against third-country companies to deter involvement in the Venezuelan petroleum sector.
Caracas, January 30, 2026 (venezuelanalysis.com) – The Venezuelan National Assembly has approved a sweeping reform of the country’s 2001 Hydrocarbon Law that rolls back the state’s role in the energy sector in favor of private capital.
Legislators unanimously endorsed the bill at its second discussion on Thursday, with only opposition deputy Henrique Capriles abstaining. The legislative overhaul follows years of US sanctions against the Venezuelan oil industry and a naval blockade imposed in December.
Caracas, January 30, 2026 (venezuelanalysis.com) – The Venezuelan National Assembly has approved a sweeping reform of the country’s 2001 Hydrocarbon Law that rolls back the state’s role in the energy sector in favor of private capital.
Legislators unanimously endorsed the bill at its second discussion on Thursday, with only opposition deputy Henrique Capriles abstaining. The legislative overhaul follows years of US sanctions against the Venezuelan oil industry and a naval blockade imposed in December.
National Assembly President Jorge Rodríguez hailed the vote a “historic day” and claimed the new bill will lead oil production to “skyrocket.”
“The reform will make the oil sector much more competitive for national and foreign corporations to extract crude,” he told reporters. “We are implementing mechanisms that have proven very successful.”
Venezuelan Acting President Delcy Rodríguez signed and enacted the law after the parliamentary session, claiming that the industry will be guided by “the best international practices” and undertake a “historic leap forward.”
Former President Hugo Chávez revamped the country’s oil legislation in 2001 and introduced further reforms in 2006 and 2007 to assert the Venezuelan state’s primacy over the industry. Policies included a mandatory stakeholding majority for state oil company PDVSA in joint ventures, PDVSA control over operations and sales, and increased royalties and income tax to 30 and 50 percent, respectively. Increased oil revenues bankrolled the Venezuelan government’s expanded social programs in the 2000s.
The text approved during Thursday’s legislative session, following meetings between Venezuelan authorities and oil executives, went further than the draft preliminarily endorsed one week earlier.
The final version of the legislation establishes 30 percent as an upper bound for royalties, with the Venezuelan government given the discretionary power to determine the rate for each project. A 33 percent extraction tax in the present law was scrapped in favor of an “integrated hydrocarbon tax” to be set by the executive with a 15 percent limit.
Similarly, the Venezuelan government can reduce income taxes for companies involved in oil activities while also granting several other fiscal exemptions. The bill cites the “need to ensure international competitiveness” as a factor to be considered when decreasing royalty and tax demands for private corporations.
The reform additionally grants operational and sales control to minority partners and private contractors. PDVSA can furthermore lease out oilfields and projects in exchange for a fixed portion of extracted crude. The new legislation likewise allows disputes to be settled by outside arbitration instances.
Thursday’s legislative reform was immediately followed by a US Treasury general license allowing US corporations to re-engage with the Venezuelan oil sector.
General License 46 (GL46) authorizes US firms to purchase and market Venezuelan crude while demanding that contracts be subjected to US jurisdiction so potential disputes are referred to US courts. The license bars transactions with companies from Russia, Iran, North Korea, or Cuba. Concerning China, it only blocks dealings with Venezuelan joint ventures with Chinese involvement.
Economist Francisco Rodríguez pointed out that the sanctions waiver does not explicitly allow for production or investment and that companies would require an additional license before signing contracts with Venezuelan authorities.
GL46 also mandates that payments to blocked agents, including PDVSA, be made to the US Foreign Government Deposit Funds or another account defined by the US Treasury Department.
Following the January 3 military strikes and kidnapping of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, the Trump administration has vowed to take control of the Venezuelan oil industry by administering crude transactions. Proceeds from initial sales have been deposited in US-run bank accounts in Qatar, with a portion rerouted to Caracas for forex injections run by private banks. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio vowed that the resources will begin to be channeled to US Treasury accounts in the near future.
In a press conference on Friday, Trump said his administration is “very happy” with the actions of Venezuelan authorities and would soon invite other countries to get involved in the Caribbean nation’s oil industry. Rubio had previously argued that Caracas “deserved credit” for the oil reform that “eradicates Chávez-era restrictions on private investments.”
Despite the White House’s calls for substantial investment, Western oil corporations have expressed reservations over major projects in the Venezuelan energy sector. Chevron, the largest US company operating in the country, stated that it is looking to fund increased production with revenues from oil sales as opposed to new capital commitments.
Since 2017, Venezuela’s oil industry has been under wide-reaching US unilateral coercive measures, including financial sanctions and an export embargo, in an effort to strangle the country’s most important revenue source. The US Treasury Department has also levied and threatened secondary sanctions against third-country companies to deter involvement in the Venezuelan petroleum sector.
Caracas, January 30, 2026 (venezuelanalysis.com) – The Venezuelan National Assembly has approved a sweeping reform of the country’s 2001 Hydrocarbon Law that rolls back the state’s role in the energy sector in favor of private capital.
Legislators unanimously endorsed the bill at its second discussion on Thursday, with only opposition deputy Henrique Capriles abstaining. The legislative overhaul follows years of US sanctions against the Venezuelan oil industry and a naval blockade imposed in December.
National Assembly President Jorge Rodríguez hailed the vote a “historic day” and claimed the new bill will lead oil production to “skyrocket.”
“The reform will make the oil sector much more competitive for national and foreign corporations to extract crude,” he told reporters. “We are implementing mechanisms that have proven very successful.”
Venezuelan Acting President Delcy Rodríguez signed and enacted the law after the parliamentary session, claiming that the industry will be guided by “the best international practices” and undertake a “historic leap forward.”
Former President Hugo Chávez revamped the country’s oil legislation in 2001 and introduced further reforms in 2006 and 2007 to assert the Venezuelan state’s primacy over the industry. Policies included a mandatory stakeholding majority for state oil company PDVSA in joint ventures, PDVSA control over operations and sales, and increased royalties and income tax to 30 and 50 percent, respectively. Increased oil revenues bankrolled the Venezuelan government’s expanded social programs in the 2000s.
The text approved during Thursday’s legislative session, following meetings between Venezuelan authorities and oil executives, went further than the draft preliminarily endorsed one week earlier.
The final version of the legislation establishes 30 percent as an upper bound for royalties, with the Venezuelan government given the discretionary power to determine the rate for each project. A 33 percent extraction tax in the present law was scrapped in favor of an “integrated hydrocarbon tax” to be set by the executive with a 15 percent limit.
Similarly, the Venezuelan government can reduce income taxes for companies involved in oil activities while also granting several other fiscal exemptions. The bill cites the “need to ensure international competitiveness” as a factor to be considered when decreasing royalty and tax demands for private corporations.
The reform additionally grants operational and sales control to minority partners and private contractors. PDVSA can furthermore lease out oilfields and projects in exchange for a fixed portion of extracted crude. The new legislation likewise allows disputes to be settled by outside arbitration instances.
Thursday’s legislative reform was immediately followed by a US Treasury general license allowing US corporations to re-engage with the Venezuelan oil sector.
General License 46 (GL46) authorizes US firms to purchase and market Venezuelan crude while demanding that contracts be subjected to US jurisdiction so potential disputes are referred to US courts. The license bars transactions with companies from Russia, Iran, North Korea, or Cuba. Concerning China, it only blocks dealings with Venezuelan joint ventures with Chinese involvement.
Economist Francisco Rodríguez pointed out that the sanctions waiver does not explicitly allow for production or investment and that companies would require an additional license before signing contracts with Venezuelan authorities.
GL46 also mandates that payments to blocked agents, including PDVSA, be made to the US Foreign Government Deposit Funds or another account defined by the US Treasury Department.
Following the January 3 military strikes and kidnapping of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, the Trump administration has vowed to take control of the Venezuelan oil industry by administering crude transactions. Proceeds from initial sales have been deposited in US-run bank accounts in Qatar, with a portion rerouted to Caracas for forex injections run by private banks. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio vowed that the resources will begin to be channeled to US Treasury accounts in the near future.
In a press conference on Friday, Trump said his administration is “very happy” with the actions of Venezuelan authorities and would soon invite other countries to get involved in the Caribbean nation’s oil industry. Rubio had previously argued that Caracas “deserved credit” for the oil reform that “eradicates Chávez-era restrictions on private investments.”
Despite the White House’s calls for substantial investment, Western oil corporations have expressed reservations over major projects in the Venezuelan energy sector. Chevron, the largest US company operating in the country, stated that it is looking to fund increased production with revenues from oil sales as opposed to new capital commitments.
Since 2017, Venezuela’s oil industry has been under wide-reaching US unilateral coercive measures, including financial sanctions and an export embargo, in an effort to strangle the country’s most important revenue source. The US Treasury Department has also levied and threatened secondary sanctions against third-country companies to deter involvement in the Venezuelan petroleum sector.
Sucks that they have to do this but whatever it takes to avoid US attacks. Unfortunately there's no magical defense system that can stop the US from destroying their infrastructure and killing people.
I wonder if Chinese companies will also be brought in, or if the US has told them no.
It's just so evil that this is basically the US saying "No, you are not allowed to develop your own resource extraction."
ramielrowe
in reply to floofloof • • •like this
Maeve likes this.
kipparikalle161
in reply to floofloof • • •like this
Maeve likes this.
Maeve
in reply to floofloof • • •