War, Oil And Debt:

War, Oil And Debt: Which Threats To The US Economy Are Legit?

Brandon Smith

It’s the magic number, the line that’s not supposed to be crossed; when a nation’s public debt finally exceeds its GDP. Historically speaking, it’s not a sign of doom like many economists suggest. Numerous countries have sustained for decades with a ratio of well over 100% and many other factors have to be considered before it’s officially time to panic. Of course, there are some cautionary tales.

Greece and Argentina are two examples. A number of developing countries shave been hit with precipitous decline after they hit the 100% mark. In the case of the US, having access to the world reserve currency changes the dynamic dramatically. Debt does not act like debt in an environment where global trade and investment is mostly priced in dollars and you control the ability to print those dollars at will.

That said, the recent historic milestone has many people suddenly worried about the state of the US system and the precarious nature of the geopolitical landscape going into the future.

Gross national debt for the US crossed the 100% mark back in 2012. The official public debt touched 101% last month. This factor combined with the inflation of the Biden era and the geopolitical uncertainty of the Trump era has the media talking out loud about the kind of crisis we alternative economists have been warning about for quite some time.

It’s certainly a startling change; alternative economists are no longer the voice in the wilderness. But let’s consider for a moment WHY the mainstream has decided to adopt a crisis posture after so many years of ignoring the obvious.

Suddenly The Mainstream Is Noticing US Debt 

The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB), a Washington-based fiscal watchdog, released a sweeping new report this week warning that policymakers are “woefully underprepared” to handle the next recession or financial shock.

They assert that the national debt crossing the 100% benchmark is one signal among many that the US cannot handle a surprise destabilization event, though they note that interest payments on that debt are the greater concern. By 2036, according to Congressional Budget Office projections, debt is on track to reach 120% of GDP with interest swallowing $0.26 of every dollar the government takes in.

The report also warned about rising inflation dangers associated with monetary policy. This falls in line with reports of tensions between Trump and the Federal Reserve, but corporate news sources are painting the Fed as a kind of “wayward institution” stuck in the middle of a bad situation they have nothing to do with. In reality, the Fed is the cause of most of our nation’s debt and inflation problems; they enable the money printing bonanza and they are unaccountable to the American public.

Fortune Magazine has tied threats of inflation and debt accumulation to the Iran war, and Bloomberg has published articles lamenting an inevitable “wave of global inflation” due to the conflict. I find this fascinating given the media’s refusal to accept that inflation existed after the 2020 election. Bloomberg even asserted that rising inflation was a “mirage” and Fortune reprinted those claims.

The question is not what Trump will do in the face of a crisis event; rather, we must ask what the Fed will do? Will they raise rates again to mitigate inflationary pressure, or will they turn the money printers back on to stave off any potential deflationary consequences. Given their track record, it is likely the Fed will inflate, but high interest rates at this time could also be devastating.

Over the past couple years I have warned extensively about war with Iran, specifically in relation to the Strait of Hormuz and the 20% of global oil shipments that travel through it every year. The war itself is superfluous; I have little doubt that the US can and will destroy the majority of Iranian military infrastructure within a couple months. The greater danger is how easy it will be for insurgent elements to keep the strait closed using simple guerrilla tactics.

It doesn’t take much to block up the narrow strait and threaten global oil prices. Securing it would have to be a top priority of the Trump Administration, which seems to be the case given Trump’s latest statements. Troops on the ground are unavoidable to ensure the Hormuz remains clear, and this is going to ruffle a lot of feathers.

The strait is the only legitimate geopolitical leverage Iran has against the US, but not in the way many people assume. It is true that IF the Hormuz remains contested for more than a couple months, the economic effects could cascade into the markets and cause serious instability. However, this instability will initially affect the East, not the West.

Only 7% of US oil imports and 6% of European oil imports pass through the Hormuz. In comparison around 50% of China’s oil imports and 40% of India’s imports rely on the strait. The hardest hit, however, will be Japan, with over 70% of their oil imports relying on ships passing through the Hormuz. And, as most economists know, Japan’s markets are deeply intertwined with US markets through the Yen carry trade.

In Japan, ongoing oil-driven inflation could pressure the Bank of Japan to tighten policy through rate hikes or reduced bond buying. This narrows the carry trade differential, eroding carry profits and potentially triggering an unwind. In other words, it will no longer be cheap for investors to borrow Yen at near zero rates and then buy assets in the US.

Prices would have to rise considerably in order to trigger such a cascade, though. It’s important to note that the panic over an impending energy crisis is currently based on speculation and not legitimate shortages.

More...

The Danger Of The Church Forgetting Israel

Theological Amnesia: The Danger Of The Church Forgetting Israel

Decision Magazine

Amnesia is a medical term describing a partial or total loss of memory. Derived from a Greek word meaning “to forget,” it’s a condition in which a person loses awareness of who they are and what they’ve experienced. King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon offers us a classic illustration of this. In Daniel chapter 4, the mighty monarch temporarily loses his reason and identity, forgetting who he is and the authority he holds.

While the vast majority of evangelical Christians remain steadfast supporters of the state of Israel and defenders of the Jewish people, a small but growing segment of our tribe has developed a troubling case of theological amnesia when it comes to God’s present and future plans for Israel. This forgetfulness is especially alarming at a time when antisemitism is rising worldwide at levels not seen since the Holocaust.

Those affected by this theological amnesia often operate within a framework known as replacement theology—the belief that God has rejected the Jewish people because of their unbelief in Yeshua as Messiah, replaced them with the church and revoked His covenant promises to them. Such thinking reflects a forgetfulness of plain Scriptural teaching concerning God’s everlasting promises to His chosen people, Israel.

The end result of this toxic theology is the conclusion that Israel has no future role in God’s redemptive purposes and that the modern Jewish state holds no greater Biblical significance than any other nation. Worse still, replacement theology often produces a subtle—and sometimes overt—form of antisemitism. If God Himself has rejected the Jewish people and revoked His promises to them, the logic follows that they hold no special place in God’s unfolding plan.

When the church forgets Israel, it may justify indifference—or even hostility—toward the Jewish people. In this way, antisemitism often becomes the adopted child of replacement theology.

One of the most frequently repeated commands in the Torah is the call to remember. Again and again, God calls His covenant people to remember what He has done for them. When Joshua led Israel across the Jordan River into the Promised Land following Moses’ death, their first stop was Gilgal. There they erected memorial stones so future generations would remember “that all the peoples of the earth may know that the hand of the Lord is mighty” (Joshua 4:24).

Centuries later, King David declared, “If I forget you, O Jerusalem, let my right hand forget its skill!” (Psalm 137:5). For nearly 2,000 years of exile, scattered among often-hostile nations, the Jewish people remembered. Each Passover they retold the story of redemption and declared with faith-filled hope, “Next year in Jerusalem.” Even today, the mezuzah affixed to the doorposts of Jewish homes serves as a daily reminder of God’s promises.

Amnesia has never been an option for the Jewish people—and it must not be an option for Bible-believing Christians. History has shown tragic consequences when the church forgets God’s purposes and promises for Israel.

Replacement theology rests on what may be described as a three-legged stool with three unstable legs—three false premises rejected by Scripture. It teaches that Israel has been rejected, Israel’s purposes have been replaced, and Israel’s promises have been revoked.

More...

Trump Vows U.S. Will Act Alone if Needed to Reopen Strait of Hormuz

Trump Vows U.S. Will Act Alone if Needed to Reopen Strait of Hormuz

Emmitt Barry

 President Donald Trump said Tuesday the United States is prepared to continue military operations against Iran without support from NATO allies, signaling a willingness to act unilaterally to secure the vital Strait of Hormuz and counter Tehran’s growing aggression.

The comments come as tensions escalate following Iran’s closure of the strategic waterway in response to ongoing U.S.-Israeli military operations targeting its missile programs and nuclear ambitions.

Trump, speaking both on social media and from the Oval Office, expressed frustration with allied nations that have declined to participate in efforts to restore commercial shipping through the strait.

“I always considered NATO… to be a ‘one-way street,’” Trump said, noting that while allies supported the goals of the operation—particularly preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons—they were unwilling to contribute militarily.

Despite the lack of support, Trump made clear that the United States would move forward regardless.

“We don’t need too much help; we don’t need any help, actually,” he said.

European leaders confirmed their reluctance to engage directly in the conflict. French President Emmanuel Macron stated that France would not participate in operations to reopen the Strait of Hormuz under current conditions, though he indicated a willingness to assist in securing shipping routes after hostilities subside.

The Strait of Hormuz remains one of the world’s most critical corridors, with a significant portion of global oil supply passing through its narrow passage. Iran’s blockade has already sent oil prices soaring to around $100 per barrel, raising concerns about global economic stability and increasing fuel costs for American consumers.

Next US move on Iran: Seize Kharg Island, secure uranium or risk ground war

Next US move on Iran: Seize Kharg Island, secure uranium or risk ground war escalation

Efrat Lachter

As the U.S.–Iran war enters a new phase, the range of options now being discussed stretches from hitting Iran’s economic and oil lifeline at Kharg Island to the far more dangerous prospect of a ground invasion, or a narrower operation focused on Iran’s nuclear material. 

The urgency comes as recent U.S. strikes have degraded parts of Iran’s military infrastructure without collapsing the regime, raising pressure on the Trump administration to decide what comes next. 

Each option carries significant risks: disrupting Kharg Island could shock global oil markets, a ground invasion could draw the U.S. into a prolonged regional war, and operations targeting nuclear material could trigger escalation while still failing to eliminate the threat. 

What happens next could determine not only the trajectory of the conflict with Iran, but also the stability of global energy supply and the future of Tehran’s nuclear program.

Recent U.S. strikes already hit military targets on Kharg Island, a small island in the Persian Gulf that serves as Iran’s main oil export terminal that has emerged as a central pressure point in the conflict, while sparing its oil infrastructure, underscoring just how consequential the next move could be.

Seizing or neutralizing Kharg Island

Kharg Island is the centerpiece of Iran’s oil export system. The island handles about 90% of Iran’s oil exports, and Iran recently has been exporting roughly 1.1 million to 1.5 million barrels of oil per day, mostly to China. 

Recent U.S. strikes on Kharg targeted military installations while leaving key oil facilities intact — a sign that Washington is trying to preserve a major pressure point without immediately detonating global oil markets.

Abdullah Aljunaid, a Bahraini analyst, told Fox News Digital that after Iran’s military capabilities were weakened, the U.S. focus could shift to economic pressure on Iran. 

"The Iranian military capacity and offensive abilities have been totally degraded, so we need to probably do something else," Aljunaid said.

Aljunaid pointed to key strategic sites, including Bushehr — a coastal city in southern Iran on the Persian Gulf that hosts the country’s only operational nuclear power plant and a key port — and Kharg Island, Iran’s main oil export hub.

"We need to take certain strategic assets — geography — like Bushehr and Kharg, out of the equation," he said. "Those two, especially Kharg, represent the jewel of the crown, and without that, Iran’s economic ability to finance itself is going to be dead."

He added that control over key maritime choke points could further shift the balance. 

"If the U.S. decided to take Bushehr at the mouth of the Strait of Hormuz, then I believe we can really see a different equation, forcing the Iranians to come to the negotiating table on our terms — the U.S. terms, and probably the rest of the world."

Retired Gen. Jack Keane has argued that the U.S. could take Iran’s main oil export hub if it chose to do so, but so far has chosen "not to take that now," he said on Fox News’ "Sunday Morning Futures."

Keane said such a move would effectively put the Iranian regime in "checkmate," given how heavily its economy depends on the island. 

"Now we (would) own all of their major assets," Keane said. "It's 50% of their budget, 60% of the revenue, 80, 90% of the distribution points for their oil." 

That view reflects the logic behind a Kharg scenario: disable the regime’s cash flow without launching a full-scale war across Iran’s interior. At the same time, the fact that Kharg’s oil infrastructure was reportedly spared suggests Washington thinks taking the island fully offline could send energy pricessharply higher and shake global markets. 

Kharg’s facilities include major storage capacity and any serious disruption there could remove up to roughly 2 million barrels a day from global supply. 

There also is a nonkinetic version of this scenario. 

In an analysis shared with Fox News Digital, Rick Clay, who served as a senior deputy advisor in Iraq from 2003 to 2009, argued that maritime insurance can function as a strategic choke point. 

His argument is that a tanker without recognized coverage cannot easily dock, finance cargo or operate in compliant markets, meaning the United States could pressure Iran’s export system financially even without physically seizing the island.

More...

Israel Eliminates Iran’s ‘De Facto Leader’ Larijani in Major Strike as Regime Leadership Crumbles

Israel Eliminates Iran’s ‘De Facto Leader’ Larijani in Major Strike as Regime Leadership Crumbles

Emmitt Barry

Israel confirmed Tuesday that it eliminated Iran’s top security figure, Ali Larijani, in a targeted overnight airstrike in Tehran—marking one of the most significant blows to Iran’s leadership since the killing of former supreme leader Ali Khamenei.

Israeli officials described Larijani as the “de facto leader” of the Iranian regime in the aftermath of Khamenei’s death, saying he had taken control of day-to-day operations, including military coordination and nuclear negotiations.

The strike, carried out by the Israel Defense Forces, is being viewed as a pivotal moment in the conflict, with leaders indicating it could significantly alter the strategic balance inside Iran.

Basij Leadership Decimated

In parallel strikes, Israel also announced the killing of Gholamreza Soleimani, head of the regime’s Basij paramilitary force, along with his deputy and much of the organization’s senior leadership.

Israeli officials said the group had relocated to a temporary encampment to avoid detection after previous strikes hit known facilities. Despite those efforts, Israeli intelligence successfully tracked and targeted the leadership.

The Basij has long been a central tool of internal repression, accused by Israel of leading violent crackdowns against Iranian civilians during waves of anti-government protests.

Netanyahu: “We Are Undermining the Regime”

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu confirmed authorizing the strike, calling Larijani the “boss” of a “gangster regime.”

“We’re undermining the regime, in the hope of giving the Iranian nation the opportunity to get rid of it,” Netanyahu said in a video statement. “It won’t happen all at once, but if we persist, we can give them the chance to take their fate into their own hands.”

Defense Minister Israel Katz echoed the sentiment, declaring that Iran’s leadership was being systematically dismantled.

Power Vacuum Deepens in Tehran

Larijani’s death adds to a rapidly growing leadership vacuum inside Iran.

Although Mojtaba Khamenei has been formally named successor, intelligence assessments indicate he is severely wounded and largely absent from public view, raising doubts about his ability to govern.

Attention is now turning to Ahmad Vahidi, who was recently elevated to lead the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). Analysts suggest Vahidi—previously a lesser-known figure—may now hold significant behind-the-scenes authority due to the IRGC’s central role in Iran’s power structure.

Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian has issued statements but is widely viewed as lacking real control over the country’s security apparatus.

Strategic Turning Point

Israeli officials emphasized that Larijani had been instrumental in directing Iran’s war strategy against Israel and coordinating international efforts tied to the conflict. His removal, alongside other top commanders, represents a calculated effort to destabilize the regime from within.

While Tehran has not officially confirmed the deaths, it released an undated handwritten statement attributed to Larijani shortly after Israel’s announcement—further fueling speculation about the regime’s internal disarray.