Authored by Pepe Escobar via ‘Geopolitics Prime’ substack,

It took only a few Yemeni missiles on Saudi refineries to wake up “leadership” vectors of the Ummah; not over 100,000 Palestinians killed in Gaza by the death cult.

The Mecca Sunni NATO pact between Saudi Arabia, Turkiye and Pakistan remains a puzzle. Or dodgy sub-standard theatre – complete with photo ops and sparse intel sharing. The full text has not been released. Everything is quite vague, only stressing “collective deterrence”.

Against whom, it’s in the eyes of the beholder. All options – Eretz Israel, US-Israel, India (in case of attacking Pakistan) – might apply. The operative concept is “might”. Add to it Turkiye’s myriad NATO constraints: a viper’s nest in itself.

Significantly, Turkiye informed Iran before signing the Mecca deal. Extra layers of spin even promote Iran joining the deal in a later stage, as Riyadh in theory rejects military strikes on Tehran, and Iran might be covered by Pakistan’s nuclear umbrella.

Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, flanked by Turkiye’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, left, and Pakistan’s Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, right, signing a joint defence agreement in Mecca, on August 7, 2026

Geography, once again, will dictate matters. Turkiye will remain in NATO – because Turkish elites are essentially Atlanticist. Saudi Arabia would have to perform miracles to extricate itself from the US security umbrella – and Indian labour. Pakistan’s priority is China and the New Silk Roads, plus the IP gas pipeline from Iran. Mecca is essentially Deterrence Theater.

A different, more intriguing scenario would point to the instrumentalization of Greater Turan – a key Turkiye objective – to the benefit of the US/Zionist combo. That would point to a neo-Ottoman remix, now reconfigured as the leadership of comprador Arab affairs. As in Ankara recreating the Ottoman hierarchy with itself at the center – as a matter of “saving” Zionists and Salafis from themselves.

It seems that the Mecca spark came from MbS himself (no one really knows, as things in Riyadh are so opaque). As Riyadh is being deprived of exporting oil via the Red Sea by Yemen – and might even lose their oil wells if things get rough – why not bet on benign neo-Ottomanism?

Why the US can never lift sanctions on Iran

Oil export routes through and around the Strait of Hormuz. Source: International Energy Agency, February 2026.

Meanwhile in Iran, under a revamped – by Leader Mojtaba Khamenei – Supreme National Security Council (SNSC), the solidified consensus is that Tehran will never compromise, especially under the current “no war, no peace” status.

Washington would have to meet a set of very harsh conditions before the Strait of Hormuz reopens, including:

1. The end to US threats and “insults”;

2. Permanent end to US wars against Iran and its allies in Palestine, Lebanon, Yemen, and Iraq;

3. Lifting of the American naval blockade and withdrawal of all US forces;

4. No less than $300 billion in compensation for war damages;

5. Lifting of all sanctions;

6. Unconditional release of all frozen assets;

7. Iran’s right to charge up to 7% on cargo transit;

8. A ban on US and Israeli vessels;

9. A 20% violation toll on ships if conditions are breached.

Call it an intimation for a US surrender: a capitulation on every front – from “follow the money” to military expulsion, end of sanctions and total Iranian control over the Strait of Hormuz.

Even grains of sand across the Old and New Silk Roads are aware that humongous US debt is avid for new mechanisms to be fed with control over natural resources – from oil and gold to rare earth minerals. And these natural resources must be priced in US dollars and the petrodollar.

Iran – the key crossroads of Eurasia – has absolutely everything the US needs. Yet it’s sovereign, independent and intimately aligned with the Russia-China strategic partnership.

So this has all the makings of a Forever War. Washington will never lift sanctions on Iran. That’s politically – and geoeconomically – impossible. And Washington, whoever is in power, will never accept Iran’s control over the Strait of Hormuz, administrative fees included, because that seals, in practice, the imperial failure to use economic sanctions as its “diplomatic” tool of choice.

The result is that some of the serious consequences of the war unleashed on February 28 are already quite clear. Those include the possible financial destruction of the GCC, complete with the collapse of their ruling regimes; Yemen’s nearly inevitable geographical expansion; virtually complete international isolation of the death cult; a massive global economic crisis in tandem with a US financial crisis; and Iran’s accession to the status of prominent West Asia power, prominent Eurasia power, and prominent Global South power.

All that implies a massive geoeconomic game-changer facilitating a much faster rise for BRICS – and BRICS+ – complete with the solidification of Shanghai as the ideal solution for Global South capital to secure their savings.

Watch out for the “Eurasian Axis”!

The Empire of Chaos, Lies, Plunder and Piracy will not take any of that lying down. So the chessboard will continue to be destabilized even in nodes that in theory are controlled by the Sovereign Independents.

Enter the Caspian Sea – a key node of the International North South Transportation Corridor (INSTC), one of the premier connectivity corridors of 21st century pan-Eurasia trade, linking BRICS members Russia, Iran and India to Central Asia while bypassing Western sanctions and NATO-controlled maritime chokepoints.

Hybrid War in the Caspian perfectly fits the imperial scenario of provoking negative systemic fallout expanding beyond Russia and Iran all the way to China and Europe. After all China regards the Caspian as a key connectivity channel between Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) projects and Central Asia and Europe.

So the Caspian could become the apex of a geopolitical divide near the center of Eurasia, contraposing Washington/Tel Aviv/Kiev to the BRICS/SCO Sovereign Independent civilization-states.

Enter, once again, Turkiye – now as the possible missing link in the Zionist axis drive to connect both wars (NATO on Ukraine, US/Israel on Iran): after all they are the one and same war from the beginning.

Still it will be a hard sell to seduce Sultan Erdogan to go after Russian and Iranian strategic assets in the Caspian, even indirectly via Azerbaijan. An even more complex replacement would be Kazakhstan, which for all of its “multi-vector” policies is a full SCO member, a full Eurasia Economic Union (EAEU) member and a BRICS+ partner.

Turkiye’s actions should be ultimately measured by the official drive to strengthen the Organization of Turkic States (OTS; Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan are both members) and what they might come up with to try to choke Iran’s geopolitical maneuvering.

Leaders of the Organization of Turkic States at an informal summit in Turkistan, Kazakhstan, May 15, 2026

Once again: it’s all about how they will play the Greater Turan card across the Caucasus and especially Central Asia, with their vast reserves of oil, uranium, lithium and critical minerals.

Moscow is carefully observing it all, with extreme discretion. Incidentally, last November Kazakhstan became the first Central Asian “stan” to join the Abraham Accords, in connection with a massive US-Kazakhstan minerals deal.

History Repeating is always quirky: we’re back to the original, late 19th century Russia-Britain Great Game. MI6 after all fully supports Greater Turan – as a premier counterpunch to the Three Sovereigns, Russia, Iran and China. Or what Trump has recently defined, for the first time ever (Elbridge Colby whispering in his ear?) as the “Eurasian Axis”.

At the National Museum in Astana, Kazakhstan, there’s a flashy panel representing all Turkic peoples, over 40 ethnic groups. Uygurs are in the mix, as well as Kazakhs and Azeris. But to translate that into Turkiye moving as a great player across Eurasia – complete with support from fake mythological narratives – is a whole new ball game.

The whole drive is not more sophisticated than creating a market for outright Turkic nationalism, with the Central Asian “stans” incorporated at best as junior partners.

Mecca as a Hail Mary pass

As the imperial pressure over The Three Sovereigns won’t relent, interlocked signature moves make all the difference. For instance: China investing in the Wakhan Corridor in Afghanistan as an extra road to reach Iran.

The Wakhan Corridor at Afghanistan’s eastern edge, where a proposed highway would create a direct land connection with China.

It’s The Great Game all over again: the Wakhan Corridor came out of nowhere at the end of the 19th century to “protect” British India from Russia’s advances in Turkestan. It connects with China’s Xinjiang for only 70 km or so, as I saw during my Pamir Highway travels before Covid.

This is one of the most high-altitude strategic borders on the planet. Only 5 months ago, Beijing came up with a new county in Xinjiang, Cenling, overlooking the border. Everything in this mountain wilderness is run from Kashgar, where the $60 billion China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) begins.

Translation: on top of the China-Iran railway – previously bombed during the war on Iran by the Americans – this is an extra overland path from China to Iran bypassing the maritime routes, susceptible to Trump’s blockades.

China, in trademark win-win mode, will go all the way betting on both options simultaneously: CPEC, via Pakistan, and the Wakhan, via Afghanistan.

To round up our travels across selected spots of the New Great Game: in the end everything will be decided in West Asia. And that brings us back to the Mecca Sunni NATO pact.

This sharp analysis points to Mecca as a Hail Mary pass linked to the current sore lack of petrodollar recycling by the petro-monarchies – the mechanism propping up that monster, unpayable US debt; the pyramid of derivatives; and Wall Street’s solitary AI mega-bubble.

And this is what’s really driving the imperial desperation to settle something, anything with the Persians.

Because Iran has defined the prime geoeconomic battleground for the RICs (Russia, Iran, China, the new Primakov triangle), much more efficiently than endless BRICS discussions: the collapse of the GCC petrodollar racket.

Without this racket, a financialized neo-colonial empire run by remote control is absolutely impossible.

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

As of August 1, 2026, wildfires and landscape fires have burned 112.3 million hectares of land across the globe, an area roughly the size of South Africa.

This visualization, via Visual Capitalist’s Sofie Gilbert, uses data from the Global Wildfire Information System (GWIS) via Our World in Data to show where that burning is concentrated in 2026 as of August 1.

The data includes prescribed burns, agricultural burns, and uncontrolled wildfires.

Africa Is the Epicenter of Global Fire Activity

More than half of the world’s burned land so far in 2026 is in Africa.

The data table below shows the land area burned for every country as of August 1, 2026:

Much of this reflects deliberate seasonal burning. Across sub-Saharan Africa, fire is a long-standing tool for clearing land, managing pasture, and preparing fields for planting. Even so, the scale is striking: Africa has recorded roughly 26 times as much burned area as the United States so far in 2026.

The Democratic Republic of Congo leads all countries with 13.6 million hectares burned, an area roughly the size of England. Angola follows at 7.5 million hectares, South Sudan at 7.0 million, and the Central African Republic at 6.0 million.

Major Fire Seasons Beyond the Global Leaders

Burned-area totals alone do not measure wildfire severity or risk, particularly because the GWIS dataset includes agricultural and prescribed burning. Still, several countries outside the global leaders have experienced significant uncontrolled wildfires in 2026.

Spain has experienced one of the year’s most severe fire seasons. Driven by extreme heat and drought, wildfires had scorched approximately 180,000 hectares as of August 1, an exceptionally high total for this point in the season. A massive fire in Ávila became the largest in Spanish history, and with simultaneous fires raging across France, combined evacuations across both countries surpassed 300,000.

Canada has recorded 2.0 million hectares burned as of August 1, with fires active across multiple provinces. The 2026 season follows the country’s record-breaking 2023 season, which burned approximately 15 million hectares according to Natural Resources Canada, seven times the historic national annual average.

The United States has recorded 2.4 million hectares burned, with Oregon and Washington experiencing some of the most severe ongoing fires. More than 100 large wildfires were actively burning as of early August, driven by drought conditions affecting more than a quarter of the country’s land area.

As four decades of U.S. wildfire data show, the number of fires has declined over time while the total land burned has increased, pointing to fires that are fewer but more intense.

Australia Stands Apart in the Southern Hemisphere

Outside Africa, Australia has recorded the largest burned area at 11.8 million hectares. That ranks second globally behind the Democratic Republic of Congo and accounts for nearly all of Oceania’s 11% share.

The data table below shows a regional breakdown of land area burned in 2026 so far:

Asia accounts for 18% of global burned land. Myanmar leads the region at 4.3 million hectares, followed by India at 4.0 million. Thailand, Laos, and China each add between 2.3 and 2.7 million hectares.

South America contributes 7% of global burned land, led by Venezuela at 3.0 million hectares and Brazil at 2.0 million. Europe accounts for just 3%, with Russia responsible for most of the region’s 3.3 million-hectare total.

If you enjoyed this graphic, check out How Much CO2 do Wildfires Contribute Globally? on Voronoi.

Andy Laperriere, Piper Sandler’s head of US policy research in Washington, wrote in a note on Thursday that explained both parties are moving left on economic policy as populist measures gain support across the political spectrum. His big-picture view is that “hard-left and socialist candidates” are damaging the Democratic brand primarily through deeply unpopular positions on open borders, defunding the police, and transgender politics. In effect, the party’s socialist class is willing to sacrifice broader electoral viability to defend nation-killing policies that most voters reject.

Policies with cross-party support include a $15 federal minimum wage, a temporary 10% cap on credit card interest rates, restrictions on Wall Street’s purchases of single-family homes, and expanded government intervention lowering drug prices.

Even Republican voters back several of those proposals by wide margins, suggesting the post-election policy threat to markets will extend beyond Democratic control of Washington.

Here’s where the numbers are striking: About 80% of Republicans support banning large institutional investors from buying single-family homes, 79% favor capping credit card rates, and 75% back a $15 minimum wage. Across all voters, 63% support higher taxes on corporations and billionaires, while 59% favor government-provided health coverage.

Laperriere pointed out that President Trump and JD Vance have helped move Republicans away from Milton Friedman-style free-market economics by framing trade, corporate power, and economic transactions in increasingly zero-sum terms.

Laperriere said Democrats face a different kind of problem, noting that the party’s socialist and progressive economic proposals are often popular, but its positions on policing, immigration, and gender remain deeply unpopular. Only 29% of voters support abolishing ICE, 24% back transgender athletes competing outside their biological sex, and 11% favor abolishing the police.

Laperriere noted that two-thirds of Democratic voters now hold a favorable view of socialism, partly because younger folks have no lived memory of Soviet bread lines, the Berlin Wall, or the Vietnamese “boat people” who fled communism.

Furthermore, as we’ve outlined, the failed socialist experiment in South America has resulted in a once-in-a-generation shift to common-sense right-wing leaders, with Trump-backed Abelardo de la Espriella taking power in Colombia just a week ago. 

The political shift has extended far beyond Colombia. In recent years, voters across Bolivia, Peru, Honduras, Ecuador, Argentina, Chile, and El Salvador have either rejected socialist governments or moved decisively against far-left parties.

Laperriere argues that younger Democratic voters lack any living memory of the “boat people” and therefore have little historical context for understanding how socialist and communist systems fail. But the warning signs are not confined to the Cold War era; rather, years of left-wing governance in South America that have coincided with currency crises, persistent inflation, capital flight, institutional deterioration, and rising crime that resulted in failed states, such as Venezuela and Cuba, are more than enough to show youngsters that socialism has failed – yet again. Latest figures show that there are nearly 800,000 illegal aliens from Venezuela in the US – and we wonder why … 

More from Laperriere:

We want to make two related points in today’s piece. First, voters across the political spectrum are more open to progressive/populist economic ideas than perhaps most investors think – and both parties (if Vance is the GOP nominee) are going to increasingly offer the voters leftof-center economic policies. The hard left and socialist candidates are not swimming upstream when they call for higher taxes on the wealthy, price controls, and more government entitlements. It’s their ideas on the police, the border, and gender identity that will hurt them politically. Second, Democratic voters are fed up with their own establishment for two main reasons: a sense their leaders are feckless when it comes to challenging Trump and the fact that a significant and growing share of the Democratic voting base is hostile to Western civilization. 

We argued in our recent piece, A Policy Bear Market, that both parties increasingly evince an open hostility or at least a wariness to free markets. As we noted in that report, JD Vance is running against Milton Friedman and market fundamentalism. President Trump has tapped into a growing sense that the system is rigged – and over time has convinced more Republicans this is true. He has a zerosum view of economic transactions in which one side is, in his words, getting screwed. It’s true there has always been economic populism on the right, and as we often noted you could call it ‘populism’ because it’s popular. It’s popular to say we won’t touch your benefits, to make the other guy pay higher taxes, and to scapegoat other people for the price you have to pay for drugs, gasoline, or anything else. But as the table below shows, a lot of ideas we generally associate with the left end of the political spectrum enjoy broad or at least considerable support among Republican voters. The move to the left on economic policy isn’t limited to Democratic voters.

And of course there has been a seismic shift to the left among Democratic voters. We noted in a recent piece that two-thirds of Democratic voters have a favorable view of socialism. Part of the reason is it has been a long time since ordinary voters have seen socialism in practice. Ask a group of people who grew up in the 1970s or 1980s what ‘boat people’ means and most of them will be able to tell you it’s people who got on leaky boats (or put their children on them) to flee communism and seek a better life. It’s most associated with immigrants from Vietnam but also Cuba and other places. See President Reagan’s brief 1982 Christmas radio address for a moving story of US Navy sailors rescuing some Vietnamese in a desperate situation to get a sense of the phenomena. 

During the Cold War, socialism didn’t have much purchase with voters because images of desperate people fleeing communism, the bread lines in the Soviet Union, and the fact that the guns mounted on the Berlin Wall pointed inward were there for all to see. There were a few exceptions (like Bernie Sanders, who honeymooned in the Soviet Union), but it was obvious to most voters that socialism doesn’t work.

But the Berlin Wall fell more than 35 years ago and socialism is rarely practiced anywhere in the world today. Ask a younger group of people what ‘boat people’ means and you get blank stares. A whole generation of people have grown up having seen nothing of the kind. Instead, a generation of young people has been taught in many schools (especially elite ones) that America (and Western civilization more broadly) is racist and rotten. This view is held disproportionately among young and highly educated white voters. 

This is the coalition that is fueling the insurgent campaigns that have taken out most Democratic House incumbents who have lost their primaries this year. They hold not only progressive or even socialist economic views; they are hostile to Western civilization. They view borders and the police as the vestiges of racism. As the table above shows, these views (in contrast to some of their economic views) are wildly unpopular. Francesca Hong, who narrowly lost the Wisconsin Democratic primary for governor this week, posted a few years ago that we should cancel Thanksgiving because it is “celebrating colonialism.” We couldn’t find a poll result for cancelling Thanksgiving, but imagine defending that in a general election. 

Nonetheless, she received more than 38% of the vote this week. That may be roughly the share of the Democratic primary electorate (which is much smaller than the Democratic general electorate, but nonetheless picks the candidates) that is hostile to Western civilization. Along with frustration with their leaders for being ineffective at challenging Trump, Democratic voters have been in a mood to vote out incumbents. The chart on the following page shows that 10 incumbents have been defeated in primaries this year, the most in a non-reapportionment year (in which incumbents end up running against each other or in territory they haven’t represented before) going back to the 1950s. Most of the incumbents who have lost were Democrats who lost to younger, more left-wing candidates. The turmoil in the Democratic Party has a lot of similarities to the forces that propelled Trump to the Republican nomination in 2016. 

As a quick aside, of course there are other explanations for the shift to the left on economic issues. Corporate profits account for a larger share of GDP. Wealth is increasing faster than incomes, and that disproportionately benefits the wealthier people who hold assets. A decade of zero rates – and the return to more normal rates – has priced many younger people out of the housing market. There was the spike in inflation. There has been a steep decline in manufacturing employment during the past several decades (though not manufacturing output). And so on.

Regardless of the causes, the bottom line for investors is both parties are moving to the left on economic issues. The socialists and the progressive left have taken unpopular positions, but it’s their social agenda that is likely to sink them politically. Many of these more left-wing economic policies are popular (including among many Republicans) and may be become law down the road.

Yet the nonprofit ecosystem of billionaire-backed foundations, far-left NGOs, Democratic Socialists of America activists, and progressive corporate media has little incentive to highlight the political shift across the Americas. The political backlash undermines the core narrative that capitalism is inherently destructive and that socialism will succeed if implemented correctly next time.

The Trump administration could exploit that vulnerability by expanding its messaging around Latin America’s rightward turn. The objective would be to remind younger voters that socialism has miserably failed, and that its consequences always end in disaster: inflation, currency crises, capital flight, institutional decay, soaring violent crime and rising insecurity.

Related read: South America Just Rejected Socialism. So Why Is North America Buying It?

Why do Americans protected by the 2nd Amendment still need to get permission and approval from the ATF to have a rifle with a barrel under 16 inches, or a particular brand of stock, or a suppressor that, in most cases, doesn’t silence a firearm at all but simply makes shooting it easier on a person’s hearing?  Why, for 92 years, have citizens had to pay for a tax stamp and send their fingerprints to the government for guns that should be considered a constitutional right?

This is largely due to the National Firearms Act of 1934, passed under the highly overrated Franklin D. Roosevelt Administration.  The law became a permanent annoyance to every gun owner in the US and a lucrative revenue stream for federal agencies; at least, until now.  

Finally, after nearly a century, the law is being erased.  But how?  

The legality of the NFA relies heavily on the existence of a $200 tax stamp.  The government did not ban covered items outright in order to avoid a clash with 2nd Amendment protections.  Instead, they added a tax to various firearms and related accessories, then made the processing of the tax and approval on the purchases an arduous affair.  Until the Trump Administration stepped in, NFA approval on any particular item could take up to a year. 

This clunky process was deliberately designed to dissuade citizens from purchasing certain firearms and attachments.  For people suspicious of government lists, the fingerprinting and applications made them not want to bother.  Possession of any of the items covered under the NFA is considered a serious federal crime with a penalty of up to 10 years in prison.

However, when Congress passed Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill” in 2025, this included a provision which lowered the NFA transfer tax to $0.  With the tax stamp gone, the legal loophole which made the NFA possible was eliminated.  Now, an army of legal challengers have brought their case to federal courts to remove the NFA entirely, and they have succeeded (for the most part).

Expectations within the gun community were reserved (gun rights advocates have long waited for this moment and remain anxious that the DOJ will try to ruin the party with an appeal).  But, this does not seem to be the case.  Trump’s DOJ missed the first 7-day deadline for an appeal.  They also have another 60-day deadline, but reports suggest that the DOJ has no intention of interfering with the court’s ruling. 

Rumors are swirling that Trump was personally involved in the DOJ decision to support the removal of the NFA by refusing to appeal.  Reportedly, according to Rep. Andrew Clyde who has been leading the charge on the legal fight, Trump has confirmed that there will be no further DOJ challenges to the NFA decision. 

So what does this mean?  The federal government will be issuing guidance over the next 60 days on how FFL holders and gun shops can proceed with the transfer of items listed in the NFA.  At first, coverage is limited to the plaintiffs involved in the court ruling (and their customers), however, the DOJ has the power to nationalize the court’s decision, effectively making the NFA null and void for everyone everywhere (this is now a likely outcome).

This means, suppressors, short-barreled rifles (SBRs), short-barreled shotguns (SBSs) and other items could be purchased without tax stamps, fingerprinting and wait times.  A basic background check (Form 4473) will remain in place.  It may take another couple of months, but it appears that the NFA is effectively dead thanks to the Trump Administration.  Gun owners had to suffer for nearly a century, but the long battle is ending.  

Meanwhile, the Hughes Amendment is still a problem, preventing the sale or transfer of machine guns made after 1986.  But it’s all about winning one fight and moving on to the next, and the end to the NFA is an epic accomplishment; one which most gun owners never thought they would see in their lifetime.

It all started with complaints from residents in Springfield, OH that a surge of Haitian migrants was causing chaos and an odd disappearance of local wildlife and pets.  City officials and local companies where shipping the migrants in by the thousands and giving them jobs.  NGOs arranged for extensive handouts including housing, food and cash. Initially, all of this was done while avoiding any discussion with the community at large. 

The surge started after 2021, but the Biden Administration denied that such a plan existed.  Within a few years, Springfield’s Haitian population grew from a couple thousand to over 15,000 migrants.  That’s nearly 25% of the total population of the city.  This does not happen without government coordination.

When Donald Trump dared to address the issue in a debate with Kamala Harris, the media and Democrats exploded with outrage.  But Trump’s assertion that the migrants were “Eating the dogs and eating the cats” in Ohio likely helped to win him the presidency.  His position echoed a growing concern among native citizens over the rapid invasion of the third world into the US and the fact that most of these people will never assimilate into American standards.

This problem is about the be rectified, with ICE officially operating in Ohio.  The Haitian round-up has begun.  With the latest Supreme Court decision, TPS designations can now be terminated by the Trump Administration. Many migrants exploiting TPS are being called in by ICE to turn in their passports and wear an ankle monitor.  These are people who will likely be deported in the near term.  NGO’s are already trying to preempt deportations by mobilizing well funded left-wing activists.

🚨 JUST NOW: Hundreds of liberals are showing up to the ICE office in Ohio where HAITIAN MIGRANTS must check in as they face deportation…

…nearly EVERY SINGLE ONE IS A WHITE LIBERAL!

Just look at the crowd. At least 80% is old and white.

Every single time. The suic*dal…

— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) August 9, 2026

The most common argument against deportations is the claim that Haiti is a “violent and dangerous place” and sending migrants back would be the same as “sending them to hell.”  The counter-argument is simple:  Why would Americans want to import hell into their own backyard?

There are currently over 300,000 Haitian migrants across the country that were, up until 2026, enjoying Temporary Protection Status (TPS), making it legally impossible to deport them.  The recent changes could affect all of these people and set the stage for mass deportations for the majority of them.  Media propaganda in favor the “poor oppressed migrants” will be rampant as this process unfolds.

Haitian Migrants in Ohio Who Lost Temporary Protected Status Are BREAKING DOWN in TEARS After Being Fitted with ANKLE MONITORS

Notice all of the media cameras there to capture the moment?

Staged and performative.

Temporary means temporary.

They all must go home.…

— Benny Johnson (@bennyjohnson) August 9, 2026

Local leaders and employers in Springfield have long interfered with the enforcement of immigration rules and credited the Haitians with the “economic revitalization” of the region.  Native residents continue to disagree with this claim.

In reality, the surge of cheap labor allowed manufacturers to avoid hiring locals who cost more.  Democrats ran Springfield for decades (until 2024 when they were finally voted out), and ran the city into the ground. They were happy to flood the city with Haitians in the expectation that eventually these people would become full citizens and vote left-wing for the rest of their lives.

Make no mistake, the importation of third world migrants by Democrats is undoubtedly an agenda to transplant a loyal voting block to replace more conservative American citizens.  Conservatives and many independents are celebrating deportations as a reversal of a horrific multicultural scheme that benefited progressives at the expense of the wider public.    

Around 52% of all Haitian households are on some form of welfare, including SNAP and cash assistance.  An army of NGOs operate to provide aid to these groups and help them game the system.  The TPS framework has long been abused; many migrants under TPS are only supposed to reside in the US for 18 months but end up staying for a decade or more.

Haitian migrants send an estimated $4 billion to $6 billion each year in remittances to Haiti. These funds make up nearly 20% to 25% of the country’s gross domestic product.  Time and time again, we see third world immigrants using the US as a cash cow to support the economy in their country of origin rather than assimilating.  They view America as an open market to be raided, not as a new and better home.  

This is why the majority of US voters continue to support deportation efforts.

Authored by Byron King and Sean Ring via DailyReckoning.com,

You may have already seen some of what I’m about to share in The Daily Reckoning. But given what we’re focused on here and the sheer amount of money now moving into this corner of the defense industry… I think it deserves a second look.

The drone itself is only part of what’s happening here. Building a military around unmanned systems requires an enormous industrial ecosystem underneath it like chips, sensors, batteries, rare-earth magnets, software, machine tools and, most importantly, the factories capable of producing these systems at scale.

That’s the side of this story Byron has been looking at.

So with that, I’ll pass it over to Byron to show you just how much the battlefield is changing and what this massive buildout could mean for investors…

We’re out of time. The future is now.

I’m talking about drones, which are no longer an exotic military sideshow, tucked away in research labs while the so-called “real warriors” plan the next campaign. Like phalanxes of marching soldiers, or guys riding horses into battle, that era is over. Drones are now the latest – and likely decisive – military thing.

The Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, Space Force, Coast Guard, law enforcement and even firefighters are in the drone business. If it can fly, float, roll, crawl, loiter, listen, jam, scout, strike or blow itself up at the right place and time, it belongs in the new, unmanned order of battle.

Think of drones the way old-timers once thought of radios, radar, GPS, precision navigation or night vision. First, they look like clever add-ons, bolted to the airframe, deck plates, or a rack in the back of a truck. Then they become force multipliers. Over time, they become doctrine. Finally, they become table stakes.

Air Power Gets Less-Manned

Begin with air power. The Air Force has been “droning” for years, whether it used that word or not. Cruise missiles, decoys, loitering munitions, anti-radiation weapons and electronic attack packages have blurred the old line between aircraft, missiles and science fiction sky-robots.

A loitering munition can search, wait, attack or return if there is nothing worth killing. MALD, the Miniature Air-Launched Decoy, spoofs air defenses. HARM, the high-speed anti-radiation missile, hunts radar systems. Together, these tools show where air combat has gone: aircraft, missiles and semi-autonomous or autonomous systems now occupy the same battlespace.

MALD missiles. Credit Raytheon/RTX.

In other words, the drone is no longer a science and engineering experiment. It has become a business model for modern war, and a rebuke to past planning processes, acquisition timelines and chronic risk aversion, all designed for a slower world that is long past.

The Pilot Becomes a Mission Commander

Here’s the next step: collaborative combat aircraft, or CCA. These are unmanned aircraft that function via artificial intelligence (AI), built to fly alongside manned fighters, bombers, surveillance birds and tankers. They carry sensors, scout ahead, jam radars, haul missiles, absorb enemy fire or hit targets where commanders do not want to risk a living, breathing pilot. But the key part of a CCA is not the airframe; it’s the autonomy stack that lets the machine sense, decide, maneuver and cooperate inside a larger combat network.

For years, a small community of defense visionaries argued that war would become faster, cheaper, more distributed and driven by autonomous systems and AI. They were called too commercial, too theoretical, too Silicon Valley-ish. Turns out, though, those guys were right.

Now the Air Force has moved CCA from PowerPoint Dreamland to contracts, flight test and production. The air service is not just buying drones. It’s moving toward a procurement model in which hardware and mission software can be competed and upgraded on separate timelines. A future F-35, F-47 or B-21 will not fight alone. It will fight inside a moving code-cloud of sensors, shooters, jammers and electromagnetic tricks.

Drone is my copilot and wingman. Future notional CCA. Credit US Air Force.

And the central question is not whether a pilot is comfortable with an autonomous wingman. Broadly, that decision has been made and now the issue is how the overall package works in wartime, especially when ideas cycle through in days and weeks (and as we’ll discuss below, this is one of many lessons from Ukraine).

Trust in new technology is not an immediate and warm feeling; it must be earned. So, before anyone trusts an AI-driven CCA, the software, communications and cyber defenses must survive deception, electronic attack, GPS denial, spoofed data, degraded links and every other dirty trick a thinking enemy will throw at them.

The old Pentagon way of buying and building new weapons was to fund new ideas on the margin while protecting legacy programs of record. But that luxury is gone, which is why CCA is not just an aviation story. It’s a validation story, a software-assurance story and a network-resilience story.

Manned or unmanned, every aircraft is now a node in a large kill chain. If the network is hacked, delayed, spoofed or denied, the airplane’s performance becomes almost secondary.

The Navy Builds Mother Ships

Characteristically, the Navy took longer to get there, but it is getting there. In the mid-2010s, Northrop Grumman’s X-47B proved that an unmanned aircraft could launch from and land on an aircraft carrier; no small trick, considering that carrier aviation is one of the most demanding operating environments on earth (as I know from first-hand Navy experience).

Navy X-47B autonomous drone in 2015. Credit U.S. Navy.

The actual, experimentalX-47B aircraft (image above) went into storage; but over time, the idea behind the program morphed into Boeing’s MQ-25 Stingray, an unmanned carrier-based refueling aircraft.

And okay, aerial refueling may sound boring, but it’s not (again, ask me how I know). Because tanking is range, range is reach and reach is combat power. Meanwhile, MQ-25 lays the command-and-control foundation for a future carrier air wing full of unmanned systems.

Follow that drone-style logic into non-carrier shipbuilding. New vessels are being built with dedicated space to store, fuel, prepare, arm, launch and recover unmanned systems — not just aerial drones, but surface and underwater drones too. In other words, a modern warship is no longer your granddad’s gray hull, stuffed full of guns, missiles and sailors. It has become a mother ship for both controlled and autonomous drones.

USS Somerset (LPD-25) can carry aerial, surface, subsurface drones. Credit U.S. Navy.

Whether launched by air, surface ship or submarine, drones can scout or attack. Underwater drones can map, listen, lay sensors, hunt mines, shadow submarines or perform missions too dangerous or dull for real people. That creates opportunities not just for traditional shipyards, but also for suppliers that can build unmanned vessels cheaply, quickly and at scale.

Ukraine Shows the Future

This is where Ukraine enters the story as a brutal laboratory and testing-range for drones. Small FPV (first person view) drones, long-range strike drones, loitering munitions and improvised systems have changed the character of the battlefield.

Drones watch trenches, spot artillery, attack armor, cut logistic lines, strike air bases and force both sides to move, hide, jam the other guy, and adapt fast. In fact, the life cycle of a drone’s usefulness is not years or months. It can be weeks, days, even hours or minutes because the enemy watches, learns, jams, copies and counters.

One critical lesson from Ukraine is that drones are not just warfighting tools. They are product development under fire.

Production Wins Drone Wars

For investors, the market angle is that drones are not just weapons. They are complex, moving AI learning systems. They require software updates, signal processing, anti-jamming tricks, antennas, batteries, motors, optics, tactics, operators and constant verification.

A drone unit is part air arm, part artillery observer, part radio shack, part machine shop, part software lab and part test range. The side that manufactures faster, ships quicker, assembles more efficiently, tests more realistically, updates software faster and repairs better gains the warfighting edge.

The Factory Is the Front

Now we get to the hard part. You don’t win a drone war with a boutique defense-industrial base. You win it with production, and not by the dozens, hundreds or thousands, but by the hundreds of thousands, if not millions.

For this vast scope of buildout you need carbon fiber, fiberglass, aluminum, titanium, specialty steels, small engines, propellers, batteries, rare-earth magnets, chips, cameras, antennas, LIDAR, software, test ranges, machine tools and skilled workers. And you need mines, mills, refineries and factories… especially factories.

This is why the new defense companies are talking like mass production industrialists. For example, Anduril’s Barracuda family is built around software-defined, mass-producible autonomous air vehicles. The selling point is not just range or payload. It’s fewer tools, fewer parts, faster assembly and a supply chain designed for scale; to “make it rain missiles,” so to speak.

Mass drop of Anduril “Barracuda” drones. Credit Alex Hollings/You Tube.

In a high-end war, the current arsenal of “exquisite” weapons will be consumed faster than Congress can hold hearings about why the armed forces are out of them. Gold-plated systems designed like hand-sewn, bespoke Saville Row suits may be impressive. But that’s not how to win a modern war against a capable foe.

Follow the Supply Chain

All of this does not mean the old defense primes will go away. Far from it. Lockheed Martin, Raytheon/RTX, Northrop Grumman, General Dynamics, Boeing, Huntington Ingalls, L3Harris and others in that arena still have customer relationships, classified program access, integration muscle, product lines, assembly and est facilities, workforce depth, access to capital, and of course entre to Congress.

But the drone boom is opening cracks in the castle wall. Legacy primes have checkbooks and technical benches that can scale. But startups can move faster. The likely winners will combine Silicon Valley speed with Detroit-style production, along with Pentagon-grade technical authority and combat reliability. In other words, the procurement establishment can no longer afford to treat the new crowd as a kiddie-table sideshow.

Watch shipbuilders too. The Navy’s future is not just buying more big gray hulls. The sea service is building out a mixed fleet of crewed ships, unmanned surface vessels, underwater drones, autonomous mine hunters, maritime sensors and launch-and-recover platforms. That points toward demand for steel, engines, electrical systems, autonomy packages, rugged communications, modular payload bays, shipyard capacity and repair yards.

Along these lines, one company that is both legacy but also quite nimble is Huntington Ingalls (HII). It’s worth a longer writeup all on its own, but not here. The takeaway is that HII builds nuclear submarines, aircraft carriers, and large numbers of surface ships, while is also has an aggressive program of drones called Romulus and Remus; the former being surface drones and the latter for underwater. The company is definitely working to secure long-term Navy business.

(Note: HII is not an official recommendation and we won’t track it here in Strategic Intelligence. But it’s a solid company for long term investors.)

On the other side of the planet, China understands all this about drones and the industrial base. Indeed, China has spent decades building the upstream and downstream muscle behind modern war: ore deposits, mines, mills, refineries, critical minerals, rare-earth magnets, batteries, electronics, components and final assembly. China’s shipyards alone are nothing less than astonishing.

Back here in the U.S., we’re just at the point of broad realization that every drone needs a supply chain before anyone can even think about finding a target. Carbon fiber, chips, magnets, batteries and sensors do not emerge from policy papers. They come from industrial systems that have yet to be built out in America.

All of this also puts rare earths and battery metals on the front page of defense investing. Neodymium, praseodymium, dysprosium and terbium are magnet words. Magnet words are motor words. Motor words are drone words. Add lithium, graphite, nickel, cobalt, copper, aluminum and tungsten, and suddenly the drone story is also a mining story, a refining story, a battery story and an industrial metals story.

And no, we’re not tossing out the old platforms. Submarines are still war-winning weapons. Just as aircraft are critical weapons. Plus missiles, tanks, ships, satellites and radars. But ore in the ground is a weapon too. Refineries are weapons. Machine tools are weapons. Battery plants are weapons. Software libraries are weapons. Assembly lines are weapons.

Here’s the takeaway: in the new age of drone warfare, the factory is not behind the front. The factory is the front.

The Investment Lesson

Here’s the investment lesson: Drones change tactics because they put eyes, ears and explosives everywhere. They change operations because commanders can coordinate fires, movement and logistics with persistent surveillance and rapid feedback. And they change strategy because nations must plan for production depth, electronic resilience, data dominance and supply-chain sovereignty.

Follow the money and you’ll find it flowing toward autonomy, software, sensors, counter-drone systems, batteries, rare earths, machine tools, cyber resilience and the old-fashioned industrial base that still wins wars.

Modern war is industrial war, now fought at software speed. Stockpiles matter, but stockpiles run down. Production keeps armed forces in the fight, and logistics keeps production relevant.

So, while we’ve been discussing drones, don’t confuse the shiny moving thing with the whole story. The real story of a drone is the stack beneath it: motor, magnet, battery, chip, sensor, code, secure network, factory, mine and ore in the ground.

This is where the next great defense trade begins: not with an aircraft on a runway or a ship cutting a wake, but with the magnets, batteries, tools and factories that make drone war possible.

While nowhere near as tumultuous as the transformational first quarter in Berkshire’s post-Warren Buffett era which saw over a dozen names rotated in and out, in the second quarter there were a few notable changes under Berkshire’s new CEO, Greg Abel. 

In a quarter in which Abel spent a net $20 billion on other equities, and repurchased about $4.5 billion of its own stock, leaving it with $365.5 billion of cash at midyear, down from a record $397 billion at the end of March, Berkshire added to its holdings in Alphabet and Delta Air Lines as Greg Abel began tapping into the company’s massive cash hoard. 

After years of relatively subdued deal activity under Buffett, who often bemoaned lofty market valuations, Abel oversaw back-to-back multibillion-dollar transactions in the period.

He spent $6.8 billion to buy homebuilder Taylor Morrison Home, a typical value bet, while also handing $10 billion to Alphabet to support its investments related to artificial intelligence as part of the company’s unprecedented ATM offering; the deal represented a new area for the conglomerate which had historically stayed away from most tech names. Here are the other transactions disclosed changes in the Berkshire 13F:

New positions:

• D R Horton (DHI), a tiny new stake worth $580K as of June 30

Raises:

• Alphabet (GOOGL) 48.1MM shares added, or $21.1BN, to $37.8BN as of June 30, making it Berkshire’s 3rd largest holding,
• Delta Air Lines (DAL), 17.5MM shares added, or $2.7BN, to $5.4BN
• Lennar (LEN), 3.1MM shares added, to $315.9MM, to $1.2BN
• New York Times (NYT), 553K shares added, or $$169.5MM, to $1.1BN
• Macy’s (M), 4.3MM shares added, or $118MMM, to $173.0MM

Cuts:

• Bank of America (BAC), 30.2MM shares sold bringing total down to 483.4MM shares worth $27.5BN as of June 30
• DaVita (DVA), 1.2MM shares sold bringing total to 28.9MM shares worth $6.4BN 
• Kroger (KR), 11MM shares sold bringing total to 39MM shares worth $2.2BN 
• Ally Financial (ALLY), 2MM shares sold bringing total to 27MM shares worth $1.2BN
• Capital One (COF), 4.2MM shares sold bringing total to 3MM shares worth $602MM
• Nucor (NUE), 2MM shares sold bringing total to 1.9MM shares worth $413MM 

Exits:

• Entire position in Constellation Brands (STZ) for $95MM as of March 31. 

Full breakdown:

Source: Edgar