Aggregator

Prosecutors have dropped domestic violence charges against the uneasy son of "Crocodile Dundee" star Paul Hogan, The Post has learned.

“Drop the f–king knife! Drop it! Drop it! ” a brave bystander screams at the attacker as he beats him, video shows.

Teams looking for a center fielder will have to look beyond All-Stars Byron Buxton and Mike Trout. Both suggested they aren’t going anywhere.

Before The First Switch Goes Dark

Authored by Madge Waggy,

Most people imagine that the beginning of a crisis announces itself with unmistakable spectacle. We picture fighter aircraft crossing national borders, emergency broadcasts interrupting television programs or financial markets collapsing within a single afternoon. It is an understandable expectation because history is usually taught through decisive moments rather than the countless ordinary decisions that quietly shaped them. Yet those who spend their careers inside engineering firms, logistics agencies, intelligence communities or infrastructure operators often develop a very different understanding of how the modern world changes. They learn that the first indication of an approaching storm is rarely dramatic. It is more likely to appear inside revised procurement schedules, altered technical standards, infrastructure assessments, budget reallocations or conference presentations attended by specialists whose work almost never attracts public attention. By the time newspapers discover a story worth printing, the people responsible for keeping societies functioning have often been adapting to it for years.

That quiet transformation has become increasingly visible throughout the past decade. Public guidance issued by organizations responsible for protecting critical infrastructure has gradually adopted a vocabulary that barely existed in mainstream discussion twenty years ago. Engineers now speak routinely about degraded environments, operational resilience, segmented industrial networks, manual recovery procedures, continuity during communications failures and prolonged operation without external support. None of those expressions should be interpreted as evidence that catastrophe is imminent. They reflect a practical reality familiar to every experienced systems engineer: sufficiently complex networks cannot be made invulnerable, only more resilient. As industrial automation, cloud services, satellite communications and artificial intelligence have become intertwined with electricity, transportation, finance and healthcare, protecting every connection has become less realistic than ensuring that essential services continue operating even when individual components fail.

The evolution of that philosophy became particularly noticeable during (May 2026), when the U.S. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency introduced CI Fortify, a genuine initiative encouraging operators of critical infrastructure to strengthen their ability to isolate essential operational systems, maintain continuity under degraded conditions and recover safely after sophisticated cyber incidents. Read on its own, the guidance appears entirely reasonable. Governments prepare for unlikely events because preparing after they occur is no preparation at all. Utilities routinely rehearse emergency procedures, hospitals conduct disaster exercises and telecommunications providers regularly test continuity plans. None of that should surprise anyone familiar with critical infrastructure. What deserves closer attention is not the existence of those preparations, but the remarkable consistency with which similar assumptions have begun appearing across sectors that once planned almost independently.

When Separate Warnings Began Pointing in the Same Direction

Viewed individually, the defining infrastructure events of recent years appear entirely unrelated. The cyberattacks that disrupted portions of Ukraine’s electrical grid during (2015–2016) demonstrated that industrial control systems could become direct targets during geopolitical conflict. The Colonial Pipeline ransomware incident in (2021) revealed how disruption affecting digital business environments could rapidly produce consequences extending far beyond computer networks. Public advisories released between (2023–2025) described persistent activity attributed to groups such as Volt Typhoon, focusing less on immediate destruction than on quietly establishing access to communications and infrastructure considered strategically important. Around the same period, numerous governments expanded investment in transformer manufacturing, emergency communications, domestic semiconductor initiatives, resilience exercises and continuity planning for sectors supporting essential public services. Each development possesses a logical explanation when examined independently. Together, however, they reveal something more interesting than any single incident ever could: institutions responsible for infrastructure increasingly appear to be planning for prolonged disruption rather than isolated emergencies.

That distinction matters because it changes the questions engineers ask. Traditional emergency planning assumes that neighboring regions remain capable of providing assistance. Severe storms damage one area while another sends repair crews. Flooding interrupts one transportation corridor while alternative routes remain available. Cyber incidents affecting individual organizations can often be contained with outside expertise, replacement hardware and unaffected communications. Planning for prolonged disruption is fundamentally different. It quietly assumes that assistance itself may become slower, limited or temporarily unavailable because multiple systems are experiencing strain simultaneously. Once that possibility enters the equation, resilience is no longer measured by how quickly help arrives. It is measured by how effectively critical services continue functioning before help can arrive at all.

Among specialists, this shift has inspired an increasingly sophisticated discussion about dependency rather than vulnerability. Modern civilization depends upon far more than electricity alone. Reliable electrical transmission supports telecommunications. Telecommunications synchronize banking, emergency services, transportation and logistics. Satellite timing enables countless digital systems that most people never realize depend upon it. Cloud computing has become deeply integrated into industries that once operated almost entirely through local infrastructure. Hospitals rely upon uninterrupted electrical supply while simultaneously depending on communications, pharmaceutical logistics, refrigeration, digital imaging and increasingly interconnected medical equipment. Every improvement introduced over the past two decades has increased efficiency, yet every improvement has also woven another thread into a fabric whose overall strength depends upon thousands of relationships functioning at the same time.

One veteran electrical engineer, speaking during a public infrastructure symposium several years ago, summarized that reality in a sentence that received polite applause before disappearing into the conference proceedings.

“The strongest systems are rarely the ones with the fewest weaknesses. They’re the ones that continue working after the first weakness has already been discovered.”

At the time, the remark sounded like little more than professional wisdom shared among colleagues. Read today, against the backdrop of evolving resilience strategies, it carries a noticeably different weight. The conversation surrounding infrastructure is no longer centered exclusively on preventing failure. Increasingly, it asks how societies continue functioning when failure, in one form or another, inevitably arrives.

The Hardware Beneath the Illusion

The digital economy has cultivated an extraordinary illusion: that civilization has somehow detached itself from the physical world. Financial markets appear to move through invisible algorithms, artificial intelligence exists inside distant cloud platforms, governments communicate through encrypted networks that seem to occupy no tangible space at all. Yet every byte crossing an ocean still depends upon glass fibers resting on the seabed. Every intelligent machine relies upon semiconductor fabrication plants that cannot simply be replicated in another country within a few months. Every modern city remains anchored to substations, transformers, switchyards and transmission corridors whose design has changed far less dramatically than the software now controlling portions of their operation. Beneath the elegant surface of digital civilization lies an industrial skeleton assembled over generations, and unlike software, steel does not receive overnight updates.

Engineers responsible for maintaining electrical transmission systems rarely describe the grid as a machine. They describe it as a living balance. Electricity exists only because generation and consumption remain synchronized across enormous distances every second of every day. A disturbance in one region does not politely remain where it began; the network responds instantly, redistributing stress according to immutable physical laws rather than human expectations. Decades of engineering have produced protection systems capable of isolating faults before they propagate, making today’s electrical grids remarkably reliable by historical standards. That reliability, however, often conceals the extraordinary precision required to sustain it. Millions of people experience nothing more dramatic than a light switch responding exactly as expected, never realizing that countless automated decisions have already occurred long before the room became illuminated.

Large transformers occupy a unique position within that ecosystem. They are simultaneously ordinary and irreplaceable. Most consumers never notice them, yet they quietly regulate the flow of electricity between generating stations and distribution networks serving entire metropolitan regions. Manufacturing one is neither simple nor rapid. Specialized steel, precision winding, insulation systems, exhaustive testing and carefully planned transportation all contribute to production timelines measured in months rather than days. Industry reports have repeatedly highlighted concerns surrounding global manufacturing capacity for these components, encouraging utilities to diversify suppliers and improve long-term planning. Those discussions are rooted in practical logistics rather than sensational predictions, yet they reveal something important about the modern age: resilience increasingly depends not only upon defending infrastructure, but upon preserving the industrial capability required to rebuild it.

The Architecture of Dependence

If electricity forms the nervous system of contemporary civilization, information has become its circulatory system. The overwhelming majority of international internet traffic still traverses undersea fiber-optic cables stretching silently across the ocean floor, linking continents through infrastructure that receives remarkably little public attention considering the volume of global commerce it supports. Satellite constellations contribute precise timing signals essential for telecommunications, navigation, banking and electrical synchronization. Cloud computing has concentrated immense computational capability within a comparatively limited number of facilities distributed across strategic regions. Individually, each system possesses redundancy and sophisticated safeguards. Together, they form an intricate architecture whose greatest strength lies in cooperation rather than isolation.

Infrastructure researchers frequently note that efficiency naturally encourages concentration. Manufacturers specialize where expertise already exists. Logistics hubs expand because traffic is already flowing through them. Data centers emerge where energy, connectivity and climate create economic advantages. The process is rational, incremental and almost invisible while it unfolds. Only much later does the resulting map reveal itself, showing how entire industries gradually clustered around a relatively small collection of indispensable locations. Such concentration is not evidence of negligence. It is often the inevitable consequence of decades spent optimizing performance, reducing costs and increasing reliability. Yet optimization introduces a subtle trade-off. Systems become extraordinarily capable during ordinary conditions while requiring increasingly sophisticated planning to remain equally capable during extraordinary ones.

This changing landscape has influenced resilience planning across numerous sectors. Public frameworks released during recent years increasingly emphasize continuity under degraded conditions, regional cooperation, diversified supply chains and the preservation of essential industrial capacity. Rather than assuming uninterrupted global logistics, planners have begun considering scenarios in which replacement equipment arrives more slowly, specialized expertise becomes temporarily scarce and communication between organizations grows less predictable. None of these assumptions requires a dramatic trigger. Natural disasters, geopolitical tension, technical failures or overlapping disruptions could all produce similar operational challenges. The common denominator is not catastrophe itself, but the recognition that interconnected systems recover according to the pace of their slowest critical dependency.

The New Currency of Strategic Competition

Competition between major powers has evolved alongside the infrastructure supporting modern societies. During much of the twentieth century, strategic advantage was often measured through visible indicators—industrial production, military hardware or territorial influence. The twenty-first century has introduced a quieter dimension in which resilience itself has become a form of national capability. Governments invest not only in stronger defenses, but in redundancy, domestic manufacturing, emergency communications, diversified energy sources and continuity planning designed to ensure that essential services endure even when conditions become unusually demanding. Those investments are rarely accompanied by dramatic public announcements because preparedness seldom attracts sustained attention during periods of relative stability. Nevertheless, their cumulative effect reveals an increasingly sophisticated appreciation for how deeply national security and civilian infrastructure have become intertwined.

Artificial intelligence is beginning to influence that relationship in ways still unfolding. Defensive systems already employ machine learning to identify anomalous network activity, prioritize alerts and assist analysts responsible for protecting vast digital environments. At the same time, researchers openly acknowledge that similar technologies can accelerate reconnaissance, automate portions of vulnerability discovery and increase the speed at which complex information is analyzed. Like previous technological revolutions, AI is unlikely to eliminate the importance of human judgment; instead, it is gradually compressing the time available for that judgment to be exercised. Decisions that once unfolded over days may increasingly require responses within minutes, placing greater value on preparation completed long before any incident occurs.

Perhaps that explains why resilience has become one of the defining themes of contemporary infrastructure planning. The objective is no longer simply to construct stronger systems. It is to ensure that societies retain the ability to adapt when conditions depart from expectations. Whether future disruptions arise from cyber incidents, natural disasters, geopolitical crises or combinations that no planner can fully predict, the institutions responsible for keeping modern civilization functioning appear to be converging upon a remarkably consistent conclusion. The most valuable capability may not be preventing every failure. It may be preserving enough stability that recovery remains possible before uncertainty has an opportunity to become something far more difficult to measure: a loss of confidence in the systems people once assumed would always be there when they reached for the light switch.

The Last Illusion

Perhaps the most remarkable feature of modern civilization is not its technological sophistication, but the confidence it has quietly cultivated in the permanence of that sophistication. Entire generations have grown up believing that electricity, communications, digital finance, satellite navigation and global logistics are constants rather than achievements maintained every hour by millions of interconnected decisions. We rarely stop to consider how many engineers, technicians, dispatchers and operators stand between ordinary life and extraordinary disruption because, on most days, their greatest success is remaining invisible. The world functions so consistently that continuity itself has become almost impossible to appreciate until it is interrupted.

History, however, has rarely been generous toward assumptions of permanence. Every era eventually discovers that the systems appearing strongest are often those that have simply not yet encountered the combination of pressures capable of exposing their hidden limits. That observation is not a prediction of collapse, nor is it evidence that disaster waits just beyond the horizon. It is simply the lesson repeated by complex societies across centuries. Stability is never a destination reached once and preserved forever; it is a condition renewed continuously through preparation, maintenance and adaptation. The documents now published by infrastructure agencies around the world reflect that understanding with increasing clarity. They speak less about preventing every conceivable failure and more about preserving the ability to function when prevention proves incomplete. Quietly, almost imperceptibly, resilience has replaced certainty as the defining objective.

Imagine, then, a future evening that arrives without warning and without spectacle. There are no air raid sirens, no dramatic broadcasts interrupting television programming and no unmistakable declaration that history has changed course. Instead, the first indications are so ordinary that almost everyone dismisses them. A district experiences an unexpected outage lasting longer than anticipated. Mobile networks become unreliable in another region. Freight movements slow because several digital systems require manual verification. Financial transactions begin taking a little longer to settle. Emergency maintenance teams receive an unusually high number of unrelated service requests within the same twenty-four-hour period. Individually, every incident possesses a perfectly reasonable explanation. Collectively, they form a pattern that remains invisible precisely because no single event appears extraordinary enough to command immediate attention.

Days later, normality gradually returns. Electricity is restored, communications stabilize, transportation resumes its familiar rhythm and public attention shifts toward newer headlines. For most people, the episode survives only as a temporary inconvenience, another brief disruption absorbed into the endless flow of modern life. Yet inside the control centers responsible for keeping those systems alive, the memory lingers differently. Engineers archive operational data, compare response timelines, revise contingency procedures and quietly alter assumptions that had remained unchanged for years. The infrastructure looks exactly as it did before, but the confidence surrounding it has subtly evolved. Experience has introduced questions that routine maintenance alone cannot answer.

Perhaps that is the quiet transformation history records most often and society notices least. Great changes seldom announce themselves at the moment they begin. More often, they emerge gradually, hidden within revised engineering standards, procurement decisions, emergency exercises and technical language that appears too mundane to deserve public attention. Years later, when historians search for the moment everything started to shift, they rarely find a single defining event. Instead, they discover countless ordinary decisions made by people who recognized that the world had become more complicated than it appeared from the outside.

The unsettling possibility is not that the lights may one day fail. Every electrical system eventually experiences interruptions, and every infrastructure operator plans accordingly. The more thought-provoking possibility is that one day the lights will return exactly as expected, the streets will fill once again with traffic, financial markets will reopen, phones will reconnect and daily routines will continue almost unchanged—while somewhere beyond public view, the people entrusted with maintaining those systems quietly acknowledge that the assumptions guiding them for decades are no longer sufficient. If such a moment ever arrives, the most profound change may not be visible in darkened skylines or silent cities. It may exist only inside the minds of those who understand that the next interruption will no longer be measured by how quickly electricity returns, but by how much confidence disappeared before it did.

Tyler Durden Mon, 07/13/2026 - 23:25

Despite entering with the third-longest odds to win it, he took the Home Run Derby in epic fashion.

Saudi Arabia Turns Taiwan Into Drone Export Leader As Iran War Reshapes Warfare

New data show that Saudi Arabia purchased a record $47.2 million worth of small drones from Taiwan last month, underscoring how governments are beginning to rapidly procure suicide drones.

Bloomberg was the first to cite new data from Taiwan's Ministry of Finance showing that drone exports surged in June, driven by a record order from Saudi Arabia. The timing suggests Riyadh absorbed many hard lessons during the US-Iran conflict and is moving quickly to build stockpiles of one-way attack and interceptor drones.

The exported drones weighed roughly 7 to 15 kilograms - or up to 30 pounds - and in a recent report by Piper Sandler analyst Clarke Jeffries, these drones are considered Group 1 and Group 2.

Jeffries laid out three key insights about the rapidly changing defense landscape:

He also listed ways to profit from the drone industry as the wave of orders begins:

Read:

• "Only The Beginning": How To Profit From The Asymmetric Warfare Boom

It's not only one-way attack and interceptor drones that will be produced en masse globally, but also counter-AUS technology to defend high-value assets such as refineries, ports, data centers, and power grid infrastructure

.Related:

• US Military Races To Harden Strategic Nuclear Bases With Counter-Drone AI Shield

In the mergers and acquisitions space, DZYNE Technologies - a maker of drones, loitering munition-type systems, and counter-drone technology - was recently sold by its investors to Nasdaq-listed defense and industrial technology firm Ondas Holdings for a handsome profit.

To begin the week, Bloomberg reported that drone company Helsing completed a $18 billion financing round from investors, including Goldman Sachs.

Refer to our note above on how to profit from the asymmetric warfare boom, as this theme will continue.

Tyler Durden Mon, 07/13/2026 - 23:00

The former child star was living on the streets of Downtown Los Angeles at the time of her death.

The former child star was living on the streets of Downtown Los Angeles at the time of her death.

Americans are some of the most mobile people on Earth: They move homes about three times more often than ­Europeans.

Several fans took to X to express their displeasure with comedian Will Ferrell being on the Netflix broadcast for the event.

Residents were woken up by their windows shattering, fences caving in, and pieces of the blasted car careening into their homes on the tree-lined street following the blast.

We Can't Control This: The Populist Tide Is Coming For Both Parties

Authored by Charles Bass and Richard Swett via RealClearPolitics.com,

Who was David Brat?

Many Americans have forgotten the name. We haven’t.

In 2014, David Brat, then a little-known economics professor, stunned the political world by defeating House Majority Leader Eric Cantor in a Republican primary in Virginia. At the time, most observers viewed the upset as an isolated event - a local revolt against an established leader who had lost touch with his district. In retrospect, it was something much larger. David Brat’s victory was an early warning shot. It signaled that a powerful populist movement was building within the Republican Party, one fueled by frustration, distrust of institutions, anger toward political elites, and a conviction among many voters that neither party was listening to them. Two years later, that same current helped propel Donald Trump to the presidency and fundamentally reshape the Republican Party.

As we watched with dismay the results of the New York Democratic congressional primaries, the memory of David Brat came floating back.

What happened in New York may prove to be a similar moment for Democrats. For years, political analysts have treated populism as primarily a Republican phenomenon. That was always a mistake. Populism is not an ideology. It is a political force. It can emerge from the left or the right. It thrives whenever large numbers of citizens conclude that the people running the country’s major institutions no longer understand or care about their concerns.

Today, both parties are confronting their own versions of that phenomenon.

The populism that has transformed the Republican Party often channels its frustrations toward immigration, globalization, cultural change, and government dependency. The populism now emerging within parts of the Democratic coalition directs its anger toward concentrated wealth, large corporations, and what it sees as entrenched political and economic power. The targets differ. The emotions do not. At its core, populism reflects a broad loss of confidence in elites – political, economic, academic, media, and corporate. Millions of Americans increasingly believe that the institutions that once commanded public trust are no longer delivering results, no longer accountable, and no longer responsive.

That sentiment has been building for years. The financial crisis damaged confidence in Wall Street. Endless political gridlock damaged confidence in Washington. Social media accelerated distrust of traditional news organizations. Rising housing costs, student debt, stagnant wages, and growing economic inequality left many younger Americans questioning whether the system works for them at all. When confidence in institutions erodes, voters look elsewhere.

They become more willing to embrace candidates who promise disruption rather than stability, confrontation rather than compromise, and sweeping change rather than incremental reform.

As former members of Congress who represented New Hampshire’s Second Congressional District from opposite political parties, we find this trend deeply troubling. American democracy has historically depended on a broad center. Progress came not because one side achieved total victory, but because competing interests eventually found common ground. The system was designed to reward coalition-building and compromise. Today, compromise is increasingly viewed as weakness.

Moderation is often treated as betrayal. Political incentives now favor outrage over persuasion and ideological purity over practical governance. That dynamic is affecting both parties.

The Republican Party has already experienced a dramatic populist transformation.

The Democratic Party may now be entering a similar period of internal upheaval.

Whether that process ultimately reshapes Democratic politics as profoundly as Trump’s movement reshaped the GOP remains to be seen. But the signs are increasingly difficult to ignore.

What concerns us most is that the underlying forces driving these movements are not going away. Neither party has yet found a convincing answer to the frustrations that fuel populism. Economic insecurity remains widespread. Institutional trust remains low. Political polarization continues to deepen. Younger voters are increasingly skeptical of traditional leadership. Social media amplifies anger faster than solutions. These are not temporary conditions. They are structural challenges.

As strange as American politics has seemed over the last decade, we should not assume we have reached the end of the story. We may only be in the middle chapters. The populist wave that transformed the Republican Party did not stop with Eric Cantor’s defeat. It gathered strength over time. The same could happen on the Democratic side.

We hope we are wrong. We hope both parties rediscover the value of practical problem-solving, responsible leadership, and the political center. Our country needs strong institutions and leaders willing to govern rather than simply mobilize outrage. But history suggests that once public confidence in elites begins to break down, the forces unleashed are difficult to contain. David Brat’s victory was not the cause of the populist transformation of the Republican Party. It was a symptom. What happened in New York may be another symptom. And if that is true, American politics is about to get a lot more unpredictable.

The tide is rising. We may not be able to control it. But we would be wise to understand it.

Tyler Durden Mon, 07/13/2026 - 22:35

Drake Powell’s shooting slump for the Nets is part mental, part mechanical and entirely maddening.

One of the favorites to hoist the Claret Jug this week is Tommy Fleetwood, who’s a hometown lad from these parts, born and raised in Southport.

So MLB is working from a position of strength here. But MLB’s All-Star Game, to be played here Tuesday, still could be better. Here’s how.

GOP Uses Kavanaugh's Own Playbook To Take Another Swing At Birthright Citizenship

Last month, the Supreme Court struck down Trump's executive order attempting to end birthright citizenship. Justice Kavanaugh joined that majority in striking down the order, but he also filed a separate partial dissent, and his reasoning did Republicans a favor.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority in Trump v. Barbara, a 5-4 decision joined by Justices Kagan, Sotomayor, Barrett, and Jackson, and leaned on the 1898 case U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark to hold that the 14th Amendment guarantees citizenship to "all children born in the United States and subject to its power."

Kavanaugh concluded Trump's order conflicted with an existing federal statute, not the Constitution or the 14th Amendment specifically. His complaint was narrower. Trump's order collided with a law Congress passed in the spirit of an amendment conservatives say was written mainly to secure citizenship for freed slaves and their children. Kavanaugh's fix was simple. Congress could rewrite the statute.

The Court today holds that the Order violates the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. I respectfully disagree with the Court's constitutional holding. In my view, the Executive Order does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment. But the Order does contravene a federal statute, 8 U. S. C. §1401(a). Congress could - consistent with the Fourteenth Amendment - amend §1401(a) or otherwise enact new legislation establishing exceptions to birthright citizenship for children born to foreign citizens unlawfully or temporarily in the country. But Congress has not yet done so.

Now the GOP is seeking to end birthright citizenship for illegal immigrants via the roadmap that Kavanaugh laid out. Sen. Jim Banks (R-Ind.) filed legislation on Monday called the Citizenship Act. It would strip automatic citizenship from children born in the United States to illegal immigrants and birth tourists by classifying their parents as "invaders" under federal statute, a designation drawn from the 2025 executive order President Trump signed declaring the crisis at the southern border an invasion.

Its text states that "any person who enters the United States without authorization or for the purpose of engaging in birth tourism is considered an invader," and it strips their children of automatic citizenship on that basis.

The bill leaves the Constitution untouched. The bill also finds cover from a source Republicans rarely quote approvingly. In the 2025 case U.S. v. CASA, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, an Obama appointee, confirmed in a separate opinion that "children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation" fall outside birthright citizenship. She stopped short of calling illegal immigrants invaders. Banks' bill closes that gap for her.

Beyond the Wong Kim Ark language, the bill rests on Article IV's requirement that the federal government "protect each state against invasion," and Congress' Article I power to "establish a uniform rule of naturalization," a direct challenge to blue-state officials who have floated their own citizenship rules.

The bill's supporting material goes further than the usual border-security framing. It notes that some Mexican nationals view northward migration as a means of reclaiming territory lost in the military conflicts of the 1840s, as formalized in the 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, the agreement that made Texas and the surrounding Southwest part of the United States. It also cites Chinese birth tourism operations encouraged by the Chinese Communist Party as evidence that birthright citizenship has become a vector for foreign influence rather than a settled matter of domestic law.

"The Supreme Court's birthright citizenship decision was an unprecedented assault on American sovereignty, and we must do whatever it takes to save our country," Banks told Fox News Digital. He added, "I'm leading the Citizenship Act to reverse the effects of this consequential ruling and ensure the millions of illegal aliens that invaded our country can't continue to exploit our immigration system."

The Citizenship Act faces a much steeper climb than Kavanaugh's opinion ever cleared. Any immigration bill needs 60 votes to break a filibuster, and Democrats have shown zero appetite for handing Trump a win on birthright citizenship after fighting his executive order all the way to the Supreme Court. Kavanaugh may have offered a roadmap, but the Senate remains a problem.

Tyler Durden Mon, 07/13/2026 - 22:10

Don't forget your passport if you plan to visit this beautiful remote national park.

"Come on. I got you, baby. You can do it," an officer told the adorable orange cat while trying to coax it from behind a railing of the Woodrow Wilson Bridge.

Comfortably Bomb

By Michael Every of Rabobank

Hormuz update: Comfortably Bomb

Summary

• The US-Iran MoU appears to have collapsed sooner than we had thought.
• With both sides striking the other, US efforts will turn to ensuring energy can flow through Hormuz ‘the hard way’ via escorting ships through it.
• For now, markets are saying the US can ‘comfortably bomb’ and ‘there is no pain’ even if the ‘MoU are receding’, mostly due to finite SPR drains and low Chinese oil imports.
• That gives the US a window for action: if it can keep enough oil flowing through Hormuz, which is our base case, it underlines military action can move markets in a desired direction; if it fails, we face a far larger energy crisis with far less in the tank as mitigants - or a geostrategic reckoning.

We argued the June 17 US-Iran memorandum of understanding temporarily suited both sides but would last, at best, until the US midterm elections and would ultimately collapse due to its inherent contradictions over tolls, sanctions, Lebanon, and uranium. At time of writing on 13 July, the US and Iran have separately declared the “ceasefire” and “diplomacy” as over. Both were striking the other, albeit not yet all-out as at the start of the war. Typically, the IRGC has declared that the Strait of Hormuz is now closed - and the US that it is still very much open for business.

There is no pain

Regardless, the market response has been constrained. At Asian market open on Monday, Brent was only up around 4% to $79, for example (Figure 1). In short, markets continue to treat a new active conflict around the Strait of Hormuz as containable.

That’s the case for several reasons. First, inventory draws have eased immediate pressure. Second, China is keeping its oil imports subdued. Third, some energy workarounds have emerged. Lastly, there has been some demand destruction.

This is not a sustainable long-term dynamic, but for a few weeks, or months at most, the market may continue to say “there is no pain” in spot oil prices even if wide crack spreads were already telling another story on refined products before this latest fighting started.

The key question is if this is a temporary or a longer-term geopolitical issue: arguably it’s both. However, the US may be gambling it can resolve the Hormuz situation to the energy market’s satisfaction before things become critical.

MoU are receding

The Hormuz disagreement stems from the MoU’s Article 5, which stated:

“Upon the signing of this MoU, Iran will make arrangements using its best efforts for the safe passage of commercial vessels, with no charge for 60 days only, from the Persian Gulf to the Sea of Oman, and vice versa. The traffic of commercial vessels will immediately start, and considering the need for removing the technical and military obstacles, and de-mining by Iran, will be instated within 30 days. Iran will conduct dialogue with the Sultanate of Oman, to define the future administration and maritime services in the Strait of Hormuz, in discussions with other Persian Gulf Littoral States, in line with applicable international law and the sovereign rights of coastal states of the Strait of Hormuz.”

Iran took this to mean it controlled all of Hormuz, including outside its own territorial waters, and could toll maritime traffic there.

The US took it to mean that Iran couldn’t and set up an alternative toll-free route via Omani waters. Iran has since attacked ships using this alternative route. That was the proximate trigger for the latest rounds of US strikes on Iranian facilities on islands within Hormuz and along its coastline aimed at degrading Tehran’s ability to project control over the waterway; and of Iranian counterstrikes.

The MoU therefore collapsed over the easiest of its contradictions to resolve, tolls, which could have been relabelled as ‘fees’. That presents a daunting challenge for market optimism as it implies US-Iran tensions are here to stay on multiple fronts.

However, it also focuses the immediate problem –and US and Iranian attention– on physical control of Hormuz.

A distant ship smoke on the horizon 

The message from US CENTCOM is clear: “The Strait of Hormuz is open to all vessels seeking to lawfully transit the international waterway. US forces are positioned and prepared to ensure that freedom of navigation remains available despite unwarranted Iranian aggression, harassment, threats, and arbitrary declarations. Iran does not control the strait. Traffic is flowing.” In pledging this, the US aims to ensure that Hormuz doesn’t bother markets the way that it did earlier in the war. That implies: 

1. Taking out Iranian facilities in and along Hormuz so the threat to the southern Omani channel is diminished. 

2. Providing defensive cover for ships passing through from drones, missiles, small boats, and mines, etc.  

3. Shielding GCC allies, particularly their energy and critical infrastructure, but where stocks of missile interceptors are reportedly low. Very notably, Iran has so far not struck at these key GCC facilities again in recent attacks. That could suggest Tehran realises there are limits to what it can do to its neighbours if it also wants to offer alternative regional leadership ahead.  

These US tasks, mirroring the late-80’s Operation Earnest Will in the Iran-Iraq War's Tanker phase, may require help from the GCC and NATO. While US allies have been reticent to (publicly) act in this regard until now –and the Saudis blocked Operation Project Freedom with the same goal– that dynamic may change with the recent narrow avoidance of an energy crisis and the narrative that Iran alone is now blocking Hormuz.  

Moreover, it has been revealed that the US continued with a covert version of Project Freedom anyway without Saudi assistance. 

You are only coming through in waves 

It’s credible to assume US (and GCC/coalition) naval escorts with air cover could move substantial energy volumes through Hormuz via Omani waters even under duress. Recent operational data suggest the US military directly escorted tankers carrying significant amounts of oil successfully through the Strait. The US claims this was as high as 7 million barrels per day. Sustained throughput of meaningful amounts of oil and products via these military escorts appears theoretically feasible, albeit at higher costs from insurance premia and longer transit times. That turns a serious supply shock into a manageable disruption. 

At the same time, it’s realistic to expect that on top of a cancelled Iranian oil sanctions waiver, the US could reimpose its blockade on Iranian oil to increase economic pressure on it.  

We can also expect more efforts to build alternative supply chains and pipelines that avoid Hormuz as possible around it. None of them are a short-term palliative to match the Saudi East West pipeline to Yanbu, but in the longer run they will reduce Iran’s leverage even further.  

Your lips move but I can’t hear what you’re saying 

President Trump has called the Iranians “liars” and “scum” and Iran has stated it wants “revenge” and to kill him. Both sides have made their red lines explicit and have shown they are prepared to enforce them kinetically. The most positive near-term path is continued tit-for-tat pressure, punctuated by attempts at limited talks that produce little beyond contradictory statements.  

Markets pricing for a resolution of this crisis from a diplomatic perspective or a ‘TACO’ are likely wrong. However, US hard power could also achieve the same benign outcome.  

I can’t explain, you would not understand 

Markets and analysts are rightly confused by all the contradictory signals being seen around this crisis: declining inventories, wide crack spreads, the renewed cut-off of Iranian oil, intensifying military action and perhaps more later – yet energy prices have not blown out. It perhaps helps to underline who has been winning and losing and who could emerge as the final victor and how. 

This is not how I(ran) am

Iran was heavily beaten militarily while exposing key US defensive weaknesses; then it was handed a win in peace negotiations due to energy market pressure on Trump; now, with oil prices contained, it has overplayed its weak hand and is under a new phase of US pressure: 

• Iran could potentially lose effective control of Hormuz. 
• Iran gets no sanctions relief as well as no oil sales if the US blockades it. 
• Iran gets no assets unfrozen nor a $300bn in FDI for an economy shattered by the recent war. 
• In Lebanon, peace progress has been on Israeli and Lebanese not Iranian/Hezbollah terms; 
• Iran’s proxy in Syria has been lost and is working on a pipeline to help Iraq avoid Hormuz; Iraq’s pro-Iranian militias are being constrained by the government; the Houthis remain quiet; and Hamas has agreed to cede power in Gaza, if not disarm. 
• Iran’s highly enriched uranium will clearly not be discussed, with reports Tehran is trying to rebuild its nuclear facilities. The US will have to address this too, but that perhaps via the air rather than boots on the ground, as in 2025. 
• None of that means the US is aiming at regime change even if Israel says it is. Yet, Tehran could find itself regionally shrunken, economically ‘caged’, and geopolitically ignored. 

But that’s only if the US wins the Battle of Hormuz. As repeatedly stressed, a US defeat or retreat would flip the script. That’s why we have continuously argued the US will use kinetic force (and, if absolutely necessary, radical economic statecraft in the energy sector, i.e., NAFTA > NAPHTHA) 

I have become Comfortably Bomb

Markets can therefore enjoy a form of geopolitical anaesthesia: “geopolitical risk equals higher energy prices” is not firing fully because so much oil has been injected into our global system.

The US SPR cushion could last a few more months at current rates of depletion; so could Japan’s SPR; and China has kept its oil import volumes subdued and has vast reserves. Indeed, there’s little logic --beyond a statecraft escalation vs the US-- for China to restart buying oil aggressively while the US undertakes military action to try to free up Hormuz which, ordinarily, would suit China. (The only caveat being that Iran has promised a ‘friends and family’ discount to Chinese ships on its proposed tolls.)

As such, the market seems to be telling the US to ‘comfortably bomb’ – but only on the unspoken assumption that its attempts to keep Hormuz open work. That is our geopolitical base case given the historical track record and the overall stakes.

However, if it fails, and/or if Iran steps up its attacks against GCC energy and infrastructure regardless of the regional bridges (and refineries and desalination plants, etc) that it burns, then we would face a serious global energy crisis, and with much less left in the tank as potential mitigants.

At the least, the US --with midterms looming-- would again have to pause until after them; and at the most, we could see the return of narratives heard a few months ago and still echoing in places - that the US is unable to use its military power to achieve its strategic goals, with enormous geopolitical and geoeconomic consequences.

The full implications of that thought should be enough to leave any strategist comfortably numb.

Tyler Durden Mon, 07/13/2026 - 22:00

Former President Joe Biden’s scandal-scarred son and the white nationalist nearly “came to blows” during their “explosive” conversation on YouTuber Andrew Callaghan's “Channel 5” show.