Japan Is the First Domino in the Sovereign Debt Crisis

Japan Is the First Domino in the Sovereign Debt Crisis

 Martin Armstrong 

Japan recorded a 1.01 trillion yen ($6.2 billion) trade deficit during the first half of 2026, according to preliminary government data. This does not mean that Japan will collapse tomorrow, but it is another crack in the foundation of a debt structure that can no longer withstand rising interest rates, a collapsing currency, and imported inflation.

Japan’s exports increased 13.7% during the first six months of the year to 60.66 trillion yen. Imports rose 10.7% to around 61.9 trillion yen. Yet Japan still imported more than it exported despite a yen so weak that Japanese products should be extremely competitive abroad.

The June figures reveal exports rose 19.3% year-over-year, marking the tenth consecutive monthly increase. Imports, however, surged 25.4% to a record 11.3 trillion yen. That left Japan with a 406.9 billion yen deficit for June, more than three times the 120 billion yen shortfall economists had expected. Japan had recorded a 122 billion yen surplus during June 2025.

Japan depends heavily on imported energy. The conflict with Iran and disruptions around the Strait of Hormuz have raised the cost of oil while forcing Japan to seek supplies from more distant sources. Japan’s oil import volume actually declined 13.7% in June, but the value of those imports increased 59.3%. Japan bought less oil and paid far more for it.

That is the consequence of a weak currency colliding with an external energy shock. The yen has fallen beyond 163 to the dollar, its weakest level since 1986. It stood near 140 a year earlier. Every barrel of oil, shipment of natural gas, imported food product, and foreign industrial component becomes more expensive when priced in yen.

Japan accumulated the largest sovereign debt burden in the industrialized world while interest rates were held artificially near zero. Government debt exceeds 200% of GDP by virtually every major international estimate, while broader measurements place the burden above 230%. Politicians convinced themselves that the debt did not matter because Japanese institutions held most of it and the Bank of Japan could always purchase whatever the private market rejected.

The Bank of Japan held approximately 485.4 trillion yen in Japanese government bonds as of March 2026, representing 47.9% of outstanding JGBs under the government’s calculation. This is not a free market. The central bank became the market because the government could not have financed this mountain of debt at normal interest rates. That arrangement worked only while inflation remained subdued and the yen retained public confidence. Both conditions are now breaking down.

The Bank of Japan raised its policy rate to 1% in June, the highest level in 31 years. Under ordinary circumstances, raising rates would help support the currency and contain inflation. Japan is not operating under ordinary circumstances. Every increase in rates gradually raises the government’s cost of refinancing debt that was accumulated under zero-rate policies.

Japan’s fiscal 2026 budget totals a record 122.3 trillion yen. Debt-service expenditures, including interest and redemptions, have jumped 10.8% to 31.3 trillion yen. That means more than one-quarter of general government spending is already being consumed by past borrowing.

The Finance Ministry estimates that debt-service costs could reach 40.3 trillion yen by fiscal 2029, representing roughly 30% of total government expenditures. Annual bond issuance is projected to rise 28% from its 2026 level to around 38 trillion yen by that time. The government will be issuing additional debt primarily because servicing the existing debt is becoming more expensive.

That is the sovereign debt spiral. New bonds must be issued to pay the interest and redeem the old bonds. As rates rise, the government requires still more borrowing. As borrowing increases, investors demand higher yields to compensate for fiscal and currency risk. The process feeds upon itself.

The Bank of Japan is trapped. If it raises rates aggressively to defend the yen, it increases government debt-service costs and inflicts losses on banks, insurers, pension funds, and other institutions holding government bonds. If it keeps rates too low, capital continues to move away from the yen, the currency declines, and imported inflation accelerates. If it resumes massive bond purchases, it confirms that the debt cannot be financed naturally and further undermines confidence in the currency.

More....

The Scheme to Eliminate Private Property and Reorganize Human Society

The Scheme to Eliminate Private Property and Reorganize Human Society

Tom DeWeese

Today, the very root of our nation’s freedom, prosperity, and private property ownership by individual citizens, is under attack across the nation. Eminent Domain is the weapon of choice to allow private corporations to simply take property at will under the excuse of the “common good.” Wind and solar farms, carbon capture pipelines, and massive AI data centers now cover vital farmland and private neighborhoods. The property owners are given no choice in the matter. It’s gone. How is that possible in a nation built on the very concept of private property ownership and protection?

For decades we have faced the globally organized juggernaut called “Sustainable” designed by powerful forces to completely change and control human society. However, from the very beginning of the plan our nation, which is based on the very concept of private property, has stood in the way

Now, today, the tool every tyrant has ever dreamed of for complete control is in their hands – AI! So, the train for control is ready to leave the station, but the way is blocked by those infernal property rights! What to do to allow tyranny to commence?

Well, the real answer was found just over twenty years ago and is now in full swing. Here is the story. It started with five black robes named Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Kennedy, and Breyer. In 2005, the Supreme Court of the United States handed down an opinion that shocked the nation.

It was the case of Susette Kelo, et al. v City of New London, Connecticut, et al. The issue: “The government taking of property from one private owner to give to another private entity for economic development constitutes a permissible “public use” under the Fifth Amendment.”

In 2000, the city of New London saw a chance to rake in big bucks through tax revenues for a new downtown development project that was to be anchored by pharmaceutical giant Pfizer. The company announced a plan to build a $270 million dollar global research facility in the city.

The local government jumped at the chance to transform 90 acres of an area right next to the proposed research facility. Their plans called for the creation of the Fort Trumbull development project to provide hotels, housing and shopping areas for the expected influx of Pfizer employees.

There were going to be jobs and revenues A-Go-Go in New London. Just one obstacle stood in the way of these grand plans. There were private homes in that space.

No muss – no fuss. The city fathers had a valuable tool in their favor. They would just issue an edict that they were taking the land by eminent domain. To get started, the city created a private development corporation to lead the project. It’s first priority was to obtain the needed property.

Put yourself in the shoes of the homeowners in that targeted neighborhood. You bought a home for your family. It’s a place you could afford in a neighborhood you liked. The children made friends. You intended to stay for the rest of your life.

However, as you planted your garden, landscaped the yard, put up a swing set for the kids, and molded your land into a home, unknown to you, certain city officials were meeting around a table with developers. In front of them were maps and photographs of your home. They talked about dollars. Big dollars. Tax revenues for the city, huge profits for the developer. Expensive condos, hotels, and a shopping center with all the trimmings began to take shape.

You weren’t asked for input or permission. You weren’t even notified that your home was targeted until the whole project was finalized and the only minor detail was to get rid of you.

More...

The Coming Famine:

How a Single Strait 7,000 Miles Away Is About to Starve 2 Billion People

Madge Waggy

You probably didn’t notice. Most people don’t. While you were arguing about whatever culture war garbage filled your feed last week, the price of urea—a compound most Americans couldn’t identify if it showed up on a chemistry test—quietly hit $520 per metric ton on the Gulf Coast. That’s up from $380 in January. Up from $210 in 2020. And if a handful of economists who’ve made careers out of being right when everyone else was wrong are correct, you’re going to wish you’d paid attention.

Steve Keen doesn’t look like a prophet of doom. He looks like your uncle who fixes vintage motorcycles and drinks too much coffee at family gatherings. But this is the same guy who saw 2008 coming while the CNBC crowd was still hyping subprime mortgages as “innovation.” Now he’s staring at something that makes the housing crisis look like a rounding error.

Here’s the thing nobody wants to say out loud: we’ve built a food system that requires burning fossil fuels to feed half the planet. The Haber-Bosch process sounds like something from a steampunk novel, but it’s the invisible scaffolding holding up modern civilization. Take nitrogen from the air. Combine it with hydrogen from natural gas. Make ammonia. Make fertilizer. Make enough food for 4 billion people who would otherwise starve.

It’s elegant. It’s also fragile as hell.

About one in ten tons of that fertilizer comes from one place. One. The Persian Gulf. You know, that region that’s been a geopolitical tinderbox since before most of us were born. The Strait of Hormuz—21 miles wide at its narrowest point—handles roughly 20% of global petroleum shipments and, critically, the natural gas feedstocks that keep the fertilizer plants humming from Qatar to Saudi Arabia.

Keen’s math is brutal in its simplicity. Disrupt that supply—say, with another round of “limited military action” that somehow never stays limited—and you’re not looking at higher prices. You’re looking at 400 million human food rations vanishing every single day. Not next decade. Not in some dystopian future. By 2027. As in, the year after next.

Let that settle. 400 million. Daily.

The lag time is what gets you. Fertilizer applied today determines harvests 12 to 18 months from now. Which means the decisions being made in boardrooms and war rooms right now—summer of 2026—are already writing the hunger scripts for 2027 and 2028. The corn isn’t worried about your portfolio. The wheat doesn’t check polling data. It either gets nitrogen or it doesn’t. And if it doesn’t, you learn what your grandparents knew: food insecurity isn’t a spreadsheet problem. It’s a stomach problem.

Ed Dowd’s been watching another pressure cooker. The former BlackRock money manager—guy managed billions, not millions—has been tracking something that should terrify anyone who remembers what $147 oil felt like in 2008. Back in April, when the Iran situation looked like it might resolve, Dowd laid out two scenarios. One where diplomacy worked, oil peaked around $125, and we all got to pretend normal was still on the menu. Another where it didn’t.

The Memorandum of Understanding that was supposed to buy breathing room? Torn up. Shredded. Gone. Oil’s back above $80 and climbing. And Dowd’s been around long enough to know what happens when energy markets get spooked.

“We’re talking about $200 to $250 in a worst-case scenario,” he said last week. Not screaming. Not pumping hyperbole. Just stating facts the way you state that water’s wet or fire’s hot. At those prices, the entire just-in-time logistics machine that feeds 8 billion people starts to seize. Trucks park because diesel costs more than the cargo pays. Ships slow-steam or don’t sail at all. And the fertilizer plants? The ones that need natural gas like you need oxygen? They shut down. Not because of regulation. Not because of ESG scores. Because the math stops working.

But here’s where it gets really ugly. Where the food crisis and the energy crisis and the financial crisis start holding hands and skipping toward the cliff together.

More...

Iran, Turkey seeking regime change in Israel via foreign interference, Likud MK tells 'Post'

Iran, Turkey seeking regime change in Israel via foreign interference, Likud MK tells 'Post'

AMICHAI STEIN

Likud MK Amit Halevi identified Iran and Turkey as the primary orchestrators of a strategic effort to sow internal division and achieve "regime change" in Jerusalem in an interview with The Jerusalem Post on Monday.

Halevi, a member of the Knesset's Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, issued a stark warning regarding what he describes as sophisticated foreign intervention in Israel's domestic process.

While Israel’s use of paper ballots makes direct mechanical tampering with elections nearly impossible, Halevi emphasized that foreign actors can still influence the outcome.

"You can influence," Halevi said. "And as long as it is an Israeli citizen, that is excellent and desirable. But when it involves a foreign country with foreign interests and a hostile state is behind the influence, it becomes fundamentally invalid."

Halevi detailed what he described as the methods used by hostile actors, arguing that they exploit the digital sphere and financial leverage to manipulate the Israeli electorate. According to him, these states deploy budgets and capabilities far beyond the reach of any individual in order to identify and exploit "weak links" and "influential links" within Israeli society.

"Intervention can be, of course, in the digital age, through various digital means on social networks," he explained. "This is funding that leads to various actions by different people in different sectors and different regions... to eventually reach a result desired by the hostile state."

He further alleged that such influence operations often operate behind legitimate-looking organizations.

"I think it is right to mention mainly two countries whose open, undisguised aspirations to set the agenda in the Middle East and beyond are known to all," Halevi said. "I mean Iran and Turkey. The two have a part in this context of attempts to influence the elections in Israel. Both are bitter enemies, and both have detailed plans for the destruction of the State of Israel."

According to Halevi, the strategic objective of Tehran and Ankara is to project themselves as the region’s "kingmakers"-states capable of shaping the internal politics of neighboring countries.

More...

Erdogan’s neo-Ottoman dream:

Erdogan’s neo-Ottoman dream: Why a Turkish bid to reclaim the empire should worry U.S. Christians more than Jews

Adam Eliyahu Berkowitz

Maj. Gen. (res.) Gershon Hacohen has issued a stark warning about Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s ambitions to revive the Ottoman Empire’s regional dominance, including a claim on Jerusalem itself. 

In an in-depth strategic analysis with the TOV Hebrew media network, Hacohen laid out a pattern of Turkish behavior, cross-border military expansion, sweeping maritime claims, and highly symbolic religious reversals, that he says amounts to a systematic project to project Turkish power far beyond its borders, reviving a 400-year Ottoman legacy (1516-1917) that once ruled almost the entire Middle East and stretched deep into Christian Europe. 

That history is exactly why the project should alarm Christians as much as it alarms Israel. Wherever Ottoman rule once expanded, Christian populations that had lived in those lands for centuries went into steep, often catastrophic decline, a pattern already repeating itself today in the very countries Erdogan invokes.

Hacohen points to Turkey’s “Blue Homeland” doctrine, a maritime strategy claiming vast stretches of the Mediterranean and its economic resources as Turkish territory, backed by an increasingly assertive Turkish navy. The doctrine’s clearest expression on land is Turkey’s continued military occupation of northern Cyprus. 

Erdogan has been direct about the scope of his ambition. “Turkey is larger than Turkey,” he has said, adding, “The borders of our hearts are elsewhere,” a reference to former Ottoman territory including Mosul and Kirkuk in modern Iraq. 

Turkey now operates military bases directly inside former Ottoman domains in Syria, Libya, and Somalia, a footprint Arab News has also documented, marking a sharp break from the deliberately isolationist foreign policy the Turkish republic’s founders established a century ago.

“The Harbinger of the Liberation of Jerusalem”

Nowhere has Erdogan tied this ambition to religion more explicitly than in his government’s decision to convert Istanbul’s Hagia Sophia, for nearly a thousand years the largest cathedral in Christendom and the spiritual center of Eastern Christianity, back into a mosque in July 2020. Erdogan invoked the legacy of Ottoman Sultan Mehmed II directly in announcing the move, framing it as a restoration of the sultan’s 1453 conquest rather than a religious or cultural decision made by his own government. But Erdogan did not stop at restoring history. 

In his own address announcing the conversion, he declared, “The resurrection of Hagia Sophia is the harbinger of the liberation of Masjid al-Aqsa in Jerusalem.” He was explicit that Hagia Sophia was only the first step, and that Jerusalem was the intended destination.

Erdogan has repeatedly and directly challenged the legitimacy of Israeli sovereignty over its own capital, using the same Ottoman-era religious framing. He told the Turkish Parliament flatly, “Jerusalem is our city, a city from us,” invoking the Ottoman Empire’s tearful retreat from the city during World War I and pointing to surviving Ottoman architecture, including Jerusalem’s Old City walls, as evidence of an enduring Turkish claim. 

In a public dispute with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu over ancient relics, Erdogan said, “Turkey will not give even a single pebble belonging to Jerusalem to Israel,” describing the city as a sacred trust belonging to all humanity rather than to the Jewish state whose eternal capital it has been for three thousand years. After the United States recognized Jerusalem as Israel’s capital in 2017, Erdogan convened an extraordinary summit of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation and declared the American decision “against ethics, history, and consciousness, and completely null and void.”

A Bid to Lead the Entire Muslim World

Erdogan’s Jerusalem rhetoric is not an isolated obsession. It is one piece of a broader campaign to position himself as the leader of the global Muslim ummah, a role the Ottoman sultans themselves once claimed through the historic Caliphate, abolished by Mustafa Kemal Ataturk in 1924. 

Analysts have noted that Erdogan calculated the Hagia Sophia decision would resonate with Muslim audiences “from Los Angeles to Jakarta, from Pakistan to South Africa,” reinforcing his image as defender of the faith even as it damaged Turkey’s relations with the West. Erdogan has absorbed thousands of Muslim Brotherhood activists fleeing Egypt and granted them refuge in Turkey, sought to expand Turkish influence in Sudan, and worked to position himself as a rival to Saudi Arabia’s custodianship of Islam’s two holiest cities, Mecca and Medina, all while presenting himself internationally as the foremost defender of the Palestinian cause and of Al-Aqsa specifically.

The contradictions in that self-image are glaring. Erdogan condemns Israeli control of Judea and Samaria while his own forces occupy northern Cyprus, parts of Syria, and have deployed into Libya. 

He casts himself as champion of Muslims worldwide while conducting military campaigns against the Kurds, who are themselves overwhelmingly Muslim. He postures as the Muslim world’s conscience on human rights while imprisoning journalists by the hundreds at home.

More...