Israel Attacks Beirut For First Time In Nearly A Month: Assassination Raid

The Lebanon ceasefire seems definitively off, as the capital of Beirut has come under heavy attack on Wednesday, with Israeli officials describing the military action as a targeted assassination of a top Hezbollah commander.

"Israeli forces have targeted Beirut’s southern suburbs for the second time today, causing a loud explosion and extensive damage," Al Jazeera reports. "The Israeli army confirmed the attack and said that it was targeting a commander of Hezbollah's Radwan Force."

IAF file image

This marks the first day in nearly a month that Israeli jets have bombed Beirut, given the relative period of calm during a US-mediated ceasefire.

"The IDF has just struck in Beirut the commander of the Radwan Force in the Hezbollah terror organization to eliminate him," an Israeli statement has confirmed.

 Defense Minister Israel Katz says that Radwan Force operatives "were responsible for firing [rockets] at Israeli communities and harming IDF soldiers."

"No terrorist has immunity, Israel’s long arm will reach every enemy and murderer. We promised to bring security to the residents of the north. This is how we act, and this is how we will continue to act," the statement added.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has also confirmed that he ordered the military to carry out the killing. Al Jazeera provides some further details as follows:

Israeli warplanes targeted an apartment with three missiles in the vicinity of Haret Hreik in the southern suburbs of Beirut, NNA reported.

Jets were also reportedly flying at a very low altitude over the Bekaa Valley.

This strongly suggests Lebanon is on the brink of once again entering full-fledged fighting between Israel and Hezbollah. Already a conflict has been raging in the far south, but now Israeli forces seem to be expanding to a total aerial operation once again.

The conflict goes back to the wake of Oct.7, 2023 and Gaza war. But Hezbollah's entry was also renewed following Trump's Operation Epic Fury. Hezbollah had successively joined the fight both related to the Palestinian and the Iranians.

As reports circulating that Iran and the U.S. inch closer to a possible framework to end the war, Israel hits Beirut’s southern suburb in a serious breach of the ceasefire. pic.twitter.com/lXuvPnXOtL

— Ali Hashem علي هاشم (@Alihashem) May 6, 2026

If Israel returns to unleashing a series of massive bombing waves on the capital Beirut, which many ordinary Lebanese have chaffed at - it could have serious repercussions for the ultra-fragile Iran ceasefire across the Gulf. 

Tyler Durden Wed, 05/06/2026 - 20:05

The Supreme Court Needs A Clock

Authored by Frank Miele via RealClearPolitics,

The Supreme Court decides cases. But it also decides when to decide them – and that timing can be just as consequential as the ruling itself.

Now we have a real-world example.

In a closely watched decision last week, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that Louisiana’s creation of a second majority-black congressional district violated the Constitution, holding that race cannot be used too heavily in drawing political maps, even to comply with the Voting Rights Act.

Reasonable people can agree with that conclusion. The Constitution promises equal protection under the law, and the idea that race should not dominate redistricting decisions is consistent with that principle. For years, the court has struggled to reconcile the Voting Rights Act with the Equal Protection Clause. This ruling moves that balance in a more colorblind direction.

But the substance of the ruling is only part of the story.

The timing matters too.

The case was argued twice – first in March 2025 and again in October – and for months it sat undecided, even as the justices’ questioning during oral arguments suggested that a conservative majority was likely to strike down race-driven congressional districts. Some observers questioned whether the delay reflected more than ordinary deliberation, given how the timing of the ruling could affect the current election cycle. But whatever the reason, states were left waiting, unsure how the law would ultimately be interpreted.

Meanwhile, political calendars did not stop. In an unusual step, both Republican- and Democrat-led legislatures have been working to redraw congressional maps mid-decade, partly in response to political pressure from President Trump. But they could not know whether the court’s interpretation of the racial component of redistricting would change – or how.

Each state was left without certainty as the midterm elections approached. Louisiana was already in the middle of absentee voting for congressional elections when the court’s ruling invalidated its district map. The governor said he had no choice but to suspend the House elections in response. Even prior to the ruling, Mississippi’s governor signed an executive order calling for a special legislative session to redraw districts 21 days after the much-anticipated decision. And in Florida, Gov. Ron DeSantis had already positioned lawmakers to act, placing redistricting on the agenda of a special session, ensuring the state could move quickly once the court ruled.

Most other states are scrambling to determine how the court’s ruling impacts them, especially during the current election cycle. For the most part, redistricting is not instantaneous. It requires legislation, legal review, and often additional litigation. Every week that passes reduces the number of states that can realistically redraw maps before the midterms. A decision handed down earlier in the term might have produced one set of outcomes. A decision handed down now may produce another.

That is not a criticism of the ruling itself. It is a recognition that timing is not neutral.

Most Americans focus on what the court decides. Far fewer consider the significance of when those decisions are released. But in a system where legal rulings intersect with political processes, timing can shape outcomes just as surely as legal reasoning.

Whether intentional or not, the court’s discretion over timing creates an opportunity for influence that extends beyond the law. A delay – even one rooted in ordinary deliberation – can affect elections, legislative agendas and, ultimately, who holds power. But what if the delays are intentional? Might the minority justices in the Voting Rights Act decision knowingly have withheld their dissents as a tactic to postpone the ruling’s impact? We will probably never know, but even the possibility suggests the need for reform.

But how could reform occur? In most areas of our government, the people hold the key. Members of Congress must answer to voters. Presidents face elections and constant political pressure. When procedures break down or public confidence erodes, those institutions are pushed – sometimes reluctantly – to adapt.

The Supreme Court is different.

Its members serve for life. Its internal processes are self-governed. Congress can shape the court at the margins – including aspects of its jurisdiction – but it does not and realistically cannot control the internal mechanics of how and when the court issues its decisions. Nor can the president. That is a function of the separation of powers.

The result is an institution largely insulated from the kinds of external pressures that force reform elsewhere in government.

Within that insulation lies a vulnerability.

Timing, left entirely to internal discretion, can become a form of influence. A majority controls when a decision is issued. But the minority, through the drafting of concurring and dissenting opinions, can affect how long deliberations continue. A chief justice may have procedural tools that shape the pace of the court’s work, but up until now, most chief justices have given court minorities considerable discretion to determine their own timelines.

We have seen how that discretion operates under pressure. In the Dobbs case, a draft majority opinion overturning Roe v. Wade was leaked weeks before the final decision was issued. During that period, the court faced intense public pressure, protests at the homes of justices, and heightened security concerns. If a majority justice had been removed from the court before the decision was finalized, through intimidation or even assassination, the result would have been a tie, effectively nullifying the ruling as a national precedent. Yet the court did not accelerate its timetable.

That is not a judgment about the justices’ motives. It is a reflection of the reality of the court’s process. A final decision does not emerge until the full cycle of majority, concurring, and dissenting opinions is complete. That means the timing of a ruling is not controlled by the majority alone. It is shaped by the pace of the court as a whole.

The power to affect that timing – even under extraordinary circumstances – rests entirely within the court itself.

That is precisely why a clock is needed. It would not assume bad faith. It would remove the opportunity for timing itself to become a form of influence.

If timing can shape outcomes, then timing should be governed.

The solution need not be complicated. Chief Justice John Roberts could adopt a formal internal rule requiring that opinions – both majority and dissenting – be finalized within a defined period. That period could be measured from oral argument or from the circulation of the majority draft. It could allow for limited extensions in extraordinary cases.

But it would establish a principle – that decisions will be issued within a reasonable and predictable timeframe.

Critics will say that such rules could rush deliberation. That concern is real. But delay has costs as well – costs that are now visible.

A court that wields immense power over the direction of the country should not also wield unlimited discretion over when that power is exercised. It’s time the Supreme Court recognized this reality – and governed itself accordingly.

Frank Miele, retired editor of the Daily Inter Lake in Kalispell, Mont., is a columnist for RealClearPolitics. His book “The Media Matrix: What If Everything You Know Is Fake” is available from his Amazon author page. Visit him at HeartlandDiaryUSA.com or follow him on Facebook @HeartlandDiaryUSA and on X/Gettr @HeartlandDiary.

Tyler Durden Wed, 05/06/2026 - 19:15

Treasury Weighs Allowing Billionaires To Donate Stock To Trump Accounts

Here's something that could go incredibly well or spectacularly wrong: The Trump administration’s flagship program for American children - the so-called Trump accounts - could soon get a dramatic upgrade. White House and Treasury Department officials are in internal discussions about letting the world’s wealthiest individuals donate shares of their companies directly into the accounts, a move that would transform the program from a conservative cash-and-index-fund vehicle into a potential magnet for high-growth tech stock.

The accounts, formally known as Section 530A accounts, are scheduled to begin accepting contributions on July 4. They were created as part of last year’s major domestic policy legislation and have already attracted billions of dollars in philanthropic pledges. Until now, the rules have been strict: only cash, invested exclusively in diversified index funds. That restriction may soon change, according to the NY Times. 

Brad Gerstner, founder of Altimeter Capital and the architect behind the 530A program, has been leading the push. Gerstner, who received a public shout-out during the president’s State of the Union address in February, has been meeting with administration officials to explore the idea. The proposal would allow ultra-wealthy donors to contribute appreciated stock - for example, Elon Musk donating Tesla or SpaceX shares, or Nvidia’s Jensen Huang contributing Nvidia stock - without triggering capital-gains taxes.

Proponents see two major upsides:

• Children could gain exposure to tomorrow’s biggest winners. Instead of modest, steady returns from broad index funds, millions of young Americans might own slices of high-growth companies for decades.
• Donors could give more, and more efficiently. By donating stock at its current fair-market value, billionaires would receive a full charitable deduction while avoiding the capital-gains tax they would owe if they sold the shares first.

Interest is already surging. At this year’s Milken Institute Global Conference, multiple ultra-wealthy individuals and companies signaled they are preparing to give. The $6.25 billion pledge from Michael and Susan Dell in December is seen as a bellwether; many others are now expected to follow.

Internal Debate and Risks

Not everyone inside the Treasury Department is comfortable with the idea. The original design deliberately limited investments to diversified index funds precisely to shield children from the volatility of individual stocks. Allowing direct donations of single-company shares - especially highly valued, concentrated tech holdings - could expose millions of young account holders to wild market swings over 18-year horizons.

Critics inside the building are also raising longer-term concerns:

• Will today’s hottest stocks still be dominant decades from now?
• Could Trump accounts become a de facto “lock-up” vehicle for billions of dollars’ worth of founder shares that cannot be sold for years?

Changing the rules would almost certainly require legislation to amend the statute. Some officials are exploring whether new Treasury guidance or even an executive order could achieve a similar result, but legal experts say a statutory fix is the cleaner path.

The conversations are still at an early stage, but momentum is building quickly. With July 4 rapidly approaching and billions already pledged, the White House faces a clear choice: keep the program simple and conservative, or open it up to the full force of private-sector wealth creation - and risk.

Either way, the Trump accounts have already succeeded in one important respect: they have turned children’s long-term investing into a national conversation. The question now is whether that conversation will include the world’s most valuable stocks.

Tyler Durden Wed, 05/06/2026 - 18:50

Scientists Reveal Time Travel Could Work

Authored by Steve Watson via Modernity.news,

Researchers have proposed a theoretical approach that could allow messages to be sent into the past using principles from quantum mechanics. Indeed, it could be happening right now already!

The concept does not enable physical travel through time but focuses on information transfer through causal loops at the quantum scale.

The work, accepted for publication in Physical Review Letters, builds on ideas from general relativity and quantum entanglement. 

A technique inspired by the film Interstellar suggests a new way of communicating backwards in time, but it could help improve conventional communication systems as well https://t.co/FXQTvhE6uE

— New Scientist (@newscientist) May 2, 2026

It draws a parallel to the causal loop depicted in Christopher Nolan’s film Interstellar, where a message is sent to the past via a watch.

Co-author Dr Kaiyuan Ji, a researcher at Cornell University, told New Scientist: “The father remembers how the daughter decodes his future message. So he can instruct himself on what is the best way to encode the message.”

Professor Seth Lloyd of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) described an earlier related experiment from 2010: “It was the equivalent of sending a photon a few nanoseconds backwards in time, and having it try to kill its former self.”

Lloyd noted the practical challenges: “Nobody’s built an actual physical, closed time-like curve, and there are reasons to think it’s very hard to make one. But all channels are noisy.”

The paper explains how prior knowledge of how a message was decoded could improve encoding in the future: “The father, who is in the future, may retrieve his memory of past events he has witnessed, even including the daughter’s decoding of the message which he is about to send! It would thus not be surprising that he will consult his memory of the daughter’s decoding when encoding his message, so as to maximize the efficiency of the communication.”

According to the research, this approach could make backward time messages clearer than those sent forward in normal time, even over noisy channels. 

The team suggests the idea could be tested experimentally at the quantum level and may offer insights into communication through noisy systems.

The concept relies on closed time-like curves (CTCs), paths allowed by general relativity where something could theoretically return to its own past. 

On macroscopic scales, creating such curves would require immense energy, but quantum systems may permit analogous effects through entanglement.

Quantum entanglement links particles so that the state of one instantly influences the other, regardless of distance. 

The research explores whether this “spooky action at a distance,” as Einstein called it, could be interpreted as information moving backward in time.

While the proposal remains theoretical, it highlights that nothing in current physics strictly forbids certain forms of time communication at the quantum scale. 

Future experiments could help clarify how information behaves in such systems and potentially improve real-world technologies.

Your support is crucial in helping us defeat mass censorship. Please consider donating via Locals or check out our unique merch. Follow us on X @ModernityNews.

Tyler Durden Wed, 05/06/2026 - 18:25

FBI Raids Office And Cannabis Dispensary Of Virginia State Sen. L. Louise Lucas

Federal agents from the FBI executed court-authorized search warrants Wednesday morning at the Portsmouth legislative office of longtime Democratic Virginia State Sen. L. Louise Lucas and at an adjacent cannabis retail business she co-owns, as part of an ongoing federal corruption probe tied to marijuana dispensary operations.

Virginia Senate President pro tempore Louise Lucas (D-Portsmouth) listens to debate on the state Senate floor in Richmond, Va., on Feb. 17, 2026. Ryan M. Kelly/AP Photo

The raids, which also extended to other unspecified locations across the commonwealth, stunned Virginia political circles given Lucas’s status as one of the state’s most powerful and influential lawmakers. Lucas, 82, who has represented Portsmouth in the Senate since 1992 and serves as President Pro Tempore, was not arrested and returned home by midday, according to her longtime political consultant. No charges have been filed against her or anyone else publicly identified in connection with the searches.

Details of the Operation

The FBI’s Norfolk field office confirmed in a statement that agents were “executing a court-authorized federal search warrant in Portsmouth, Va.” FBI spokeswoman Cassandra Temple told reporters on scene that the bureau was conducting “court-authorized law enforcement activity today” but provided no further details on the targets or allegations.

Eyewitness accounts and news footage described a significant law enforcement presence: approximately 8 - 10 agents in marked uniforms at Lucas’s office in the Lucas Professional Center, with staff ordered outside and prevented from re-entering while agents carried out boxes of materials. At the neighboring cannabis dispensary, known as The Cannabis Outlet (or Cannabis Outlet), SWAT team members arrived with weapons drawn, ordered occupants to exit with hands raised, and placed at least three people in handcuffs before taking them into custody. Lucas arrived in the parking lot shortly after the operation began and told a reporter she had “no idea” what was happening.

A person close to the senator told CNN that agents seized electronics and other items. The investigation, which sources described as having opened during the Biden administration and continuing under the current administration, focuses on possible corruption and bribery related to marijuana dispensary businesses.

Political Context: Redistricting Champion

The timing of the raids has fueled speculation and partisan debate because of Lucas’s prominent role in Virginia’s recent congressional redistricting battle. Last month, Virginia voters approved—by a margin of more than 100,000 votes - a referendum allowing mid-decade redrawing of congressional district lines under certain conditions. Lucas was a leading architect of the effort, which produced new maps that could shift Virginia’s congressional delegation from its current 6–5 Democratic edge to as many as 10 Democratic seats out of 11.

Democrats framed the redistricting as a necessary counter to Republican-led gerrymandering efforts in other states ahead of the 2026 midterms. Lucas was characteristically blunt in public exchanges, responding on social media to Texas Sen. Ted Cruz’s criticism of the maps as a Democratic gerrymander with the words: “You all started it and we fucking finished it.”

"While we await the full facts of the investigation, it must be acknowledged that this FBI raid occurs in the broader context of President [Donald] Trump’s repeated abuse of the Department of Justice to target his perceived political opponents," Rep. Bobby Scott (D-VA) posted on X. 

The FBI has not publicly linked the searches to redistricting. Official statements emphasize only that the probe is ongoing and that there is no threat to public safety.

Tyler Durden Wed, 05/06/2026 - 18:00

NOAA OKs First Deep-Sea Mining Plan For Critical Minerals In Pacific Ocean

Authored by Jill McLaughlin via The Epoch Times,

The Trump administration approved on May 1 its first deep-sea critical minerals exploration application, submitted by North Carolina-based deep-sea mining explorer The Metals Company USA (TMC).

The company expects to find millions of tons of nickel, copper, cobalt, and manganese on the sea floor needed in the United States for electric vehicle batteries, infrastructure, and national defense systems.

TMC applied for the 10-year license last year after President Donald Trump ordered the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to expedite the process of reviewing and issuing the deep-sea permits to “unleash America’s offshore critical minerals and resources.”

“NOAA has determined that this application is fully compliant with the applicable application information requirements,” the agency reported May 1.

The application now moves into the certification stage and will undergo an environmental review process and be open for public comment before a license and permit are issued. TMC USA expects the process to conclude sometime in the first three months of 2027.

TMC is a subsidiary of a larger Canadian exploration firm with the same name that holds rights to what it describes as the world’s largest undeveloped resource of battery-grade nickel, copper, cobalt, and manganese.

“This determination marks an important step forward in NOAA’s transparent, rules-based process, and brings us ever closer to providing the U.S. with a new, abundant and lower-impact source of critical metals,” parent company TMC CEO Gerard Barron said in a statement.

“It reflects the sheer scale of scientific, environmental, and engineering effort and expertise that have been brought to bear on this project over the last 15 years, which provides us with sufficient information to move efficiently and responsibly into commercial operations under NOAA’s oversight,” Barron said.

NOAA determined that the application for an exploration license and commercial recovery permit under the Deep Seabed Hard Mineral Resources Act was in full compliance.

The Metals Company plans to conduct seabed mining exploration within the area beyond national jurisdiction known as the Clarion-Clipperton Zone, which stretches about 4,500 miles between Hawaii and Mexico in the North Pacific Ocean.

The zone is considered “common heritage of mankind” and is administered by the International Seabed Authority (ISA), a United Nations (U.N.) body that manages seabed resources.

The ISA, however, has not yet finalized global rules for the zone, and multiple countries view action in the absence of such rules as a violation of the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea.

Engineers aboard Hidden ​Gem inspect the ​top ​of the 4-kilometer-long ​riser system, ​which ​is used ​to ​transport ​collected nodules ​to the surface on compressed air. The Metals Company

The United States pushed forward this year to issue licenses under its own laws instead of waiting for the ISA, as part of a larger effort to amass a domestic supply of critical minerals for national security after China began to restrict global supplies.

TMC’s application and recovery permit covers a total area of 26,000 square miles in the Clarion-Clipperton Zone. The exploration areas are even larger, covering nearly 77,220 square miles.

The company believes the exploration areas contain an estimated 17 million tons of nickel, more than 14 million tons of copper, 2.2 million tons of cobalt, and 380 million tons of manganese.

The application received nearly 300 public comments, with some opposing and some supporting the company’s plans.

The ​Allseas-designed collector vehicle gently ​lifts the loose-lying ​polymetallic ​nodules from the seafloor at ​depths of 4 kilometers ​using water jets. The Metals Company

“I oppose deep-sea mining,” said Suzanne Reid, an individual from Florida. “We should not destroy the ocean’s natural oxygen-producing nodules. Please choose a moratorium to protect our future.”

Commenter James Selke said he thought the project was needed.

“While this project may introduce unavoidable impacts to the deep seabed, the relative area of this license (and the CCZ generally) is very small and isolated in comparison to the vastness of the World’s oceans,” Selke wrote. “The United States should deeply consider the national security impacts of such a project, holistically, rather than simply evaluating the unavoidable, yet mitigatable, impacts as the determining factor.”

NOAA accelerated permitting for deep-sea mining companies this year using a 1980s policy that allows U.S. citizens to explore the seabed to mine critical minerals until the international regulatory regime is in place.

The United States controls seabed mineral resources in the Exclusive Economic Zone and its Extended Continental Shelf, covering over 4 million square miles of submerged land around the Pacific islands, Alaska, and the Atlantic coast.

In ​2022, ​TMC and Allseas ​successfully lifted ​over 3,000 metric tonnes of ​nodules from the seafloor and transferred them ​to the hold of the Hidden ​Gem vessel. The Metals Company

Experts estimate that 43 of 60 minerals listed by the U.S. as critical to the economic and national security of America in 2025 can be found on the outer continental shelf, according to Congress.

The agency released the first images of geologic seafloor samples acquired through a survey project to map and characterize more than 30,000 square nautical miles of federal waters in the U.S. exclusive economic zone beyond the territorial waters of American Samoa in April.

“NOAA’s mapping missions serve as a reminder that ocean exploration is a vital piece of our nation’s economic development,” NOAA Administrator Neil Jacobs said in a statement.

The data gathered from the project will enable science-based decision-making to support responsible development, Jacobs said.

Tyler Durden Wed, 05/06/2026 - 17:40

Indiana Primary: Senate Incumbents Crushed By Trump-Backed Challengers

First rule of politics:  Never ignore the will of your base.  Second rule of politics:  Never make your party and your supporters weaker, or the opposing party stronger. 

In December 2025, 21 Republican Indiana state senators joined forces with 10 Democrats to vote against a Trump-supported bill to redraw the state's congressional map as more favorable to conservatives in the midst of a redistricting battle that could decide the outcome of the 2026 mid-terms.  The decision was viewed by many conservative voters in the state as contrary to the will of the MAGA base and a move that could lead to greater disaster for the country. 

The national agenda to undo the unprecedented damage done by the Biden Administration is already facing significant interference from every angle by Democrats and activist judges.  Conservatives fear it would be further derailed if Democrats take control of the House or the Senate (or both) two years into Trump's last term.  The last thing the nation needs is Republicans with suicidal empathy coming out of the woodwork to add to the chaos.

Given the Republican Party's incessant propensity to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, the Indiana GOP/Democrat alliance was predictable but still troubling.  Crossing the aisle these days means siding with the same people who tried to enforce permanent pandemic lockdowns, mass-jailed J6 protesters, initiated open borders, spread transgender propaganda in public schools, etc. 

The era of bipartisanship is dead.

Critics might argue that defiance of Trump is not, in itself, a betrayal of the party as long as it's in the service of greater conservative principles (the idea of "fair maps" being one of those principles).  However, in the end, the voters still decide who best represents conservative ideals.   

A recent decision by the Supreme Court to restrict race-based gerrymandering by Democrats has opened the door to redistricting in a number of red states (similar to redistricting efforts by Democrats in states like Virginia).  The shift brought even more negative scrutiny on Republican incumbents in Indiana, adding to their inevitable and embarrassing defeat this week in the State Senate primaries. 

Republican State Senator Travis Holdman — who lost by over 20 points — isn’t taking it very well.

“Revenge & retribution is not a Christian value.”

All you had to do was listen to your constituents. pic.twitter.com/CW41WrS7Fo

— ThePersistence (@ScottPresler) May 6, 2026

Trump responded to what he referred to as a "RINO" betrayal by endorsing primary challengers, taking on seven of the incumbents running for re-election. His allies (including groups like Turning Point USA) focused considerable funding into these otherwise low-profile races.  Trump accused incumbents of potentially costing Republicans two extra House seats in the Mid-Terms and warned:

"Anybody that votes against Redistricting, and the success of the Republican Party in D.C., will be, I am sure, met with a MAGA Primary in the Spring..."

Trump was not wrong.  Of the seven incumbents on Trump's hit list, five were overwhelmingly defeated in the primaries (some of them had been in office for decades).  The sixth, Sen. Spencer Deery, is hanging by a thread with 3 vote lead after 95% of the vote was counted.  Trump challenger Paula Copenhaver says she expects to win with provisional votes left to be tallied.  If Copenhaver prevails, Trump will have swept away a significant number of anti-MAGA state senators. 

In the lead-up to the race, rumors spread by anti-Trump influencers swirled on social media claimed that MAGA as "all but dead".  They asserted that the voters were "jumping ship" en masse.  Obviously this is not the case.  The Indiana primary results have set the tone going into the Midterms and any notion of an internal conservative revolt has been quashed.  

A new attempt at redistricting in Indiana will not take place until 2027, but is is likely that Trump thought it more important to send a message.  And, it is true that for many years certain segments of the Republican Party have consistently aided the Democrats even though they rarely if ever offer such fair play in return.  Some call it political diplomacy, others call it deliberate subversion. 

In any case, Trump just made it clear that it will no longer be tolerated.       

Tyler Durden Wed, 05/06/2026 - 17:20

Will AI Make Us Wonderfully Prosperous?

Authored by Jeffrey Tucker via The Epoch Times,

“Any given government program will become the opposite of its name,” Elon Musk said recently.

The rule seems correct.

Think of the Affordable Care Act, the Inflation Control Act, the CARES Act, the War on Poverty, and countless others. They all resulted in the very inverse of how they are named.

That’s some wisdom right there.

Musk holds many libertarian views along these lines and has been a vocal champion of capitalism as an economic system. He famously set out to lead a team to cut $2 trillion from the federal budget. It did not work but not for want of trying.

However, Musk is not always consistent. And he is not always correct.

He also recently wrote the following: “Universal HIGH INCOME via checks issued by the Federal government is the best way to deal with unemployment caused by AI. AI/robotics will produce goods & services far in excess of the increase in the money supply, so there will not be inflation.”

Let’s consider these assertions from the inside out.

Musk claims that AI is going to produce vast goods and services such that it will generate 4, 5, and 6 percent growth. Indeed, if economic growth is going to outpace money supply growth, even in normal times, it will need to be above 6 percent at least. That’s just based on average rates of money growth over the decade. If we want healthy growth beyond that, we’ll need output growth on the level of 9 and 10 percent.

The United States has not experienced growth like that since the 1880s. Data gathering was not quite sophisticated in those days—national income accounting had not yet been invented—so we cannot say for sure. This is just an estimate.

Perhaps it is not far off, however.

We had a bout of explosive innovation: commercialized steel, internal combustion, electric lighting, telegraph and photography, and much more.

That kind of innovation did indeed generate economic growth. The world had never seen anything like it.

Elon is implicitly assuming that artificial intelligence will be the same, a driver of a massive increase in prosperity. There is reason for doubt. We heard the same thing about the digital age. In fact, I was certain back in the late 1990s that the Internet would yield huge increases in productivity that would lead to growth on the scale of the Gilded Age.

That did not happen. We saw the opposite. We’ve been through 30 years of frustratingly slow economic growth. The fruits of the digital revolution were squandered with growing amounts of government debt, regulation, burdensome business mandates, and a litigation explosion. That combination created an enormous drag on what should have been glorious growth.

Recall that in the 1880s, we had no federal regulatory agencies at all. We did not have a welfare state or income tax. The dollar was secured and sound with a gold standard. We had no inflation at all; in fact, the dollar grew in value year by year, something that has not happened once since World War II.

For technological innovation to create explosive economic growth, you need that special ingredient called economic freedom. We are nowhere near as free in economics today as we were then.

Given this history, I’m extremely doubtful of the predictions that AI will give birth to wonderful economic growth anywhere near 9 and 10 percent. I would be very surprised. Indeed, mankind has proven its remarkable capacity for squandering wonderful opportunities to make the world a better place.

AI is impressive but with all new technologies, the hype always exceeds the reality. Remember it was only 10 years ago that everything and anything would “get on the blockchain” and magically become wonderful. Business consultants made bank duping naive corporate managers with this prattle. At some point, it became obvious that the blockchain is useful for specific tasks while the old tech would be fine for most everything else.

I see the frenzy over AI very similarly. Nor do I believe that the home robot has much of a future in our domestic lives.

Factories and shipping, sure, but helping around the house as in the Jetsons? Doubtful.

There is another odd feature to Elon’s argument. He says that all this wonderful but unproven economic growth will be accompanied by widespread unemployment as robots replace humans. This is odd. We’ll never live in a world where there is no work to be done. There is always work to be done at some price. So long as labor markets are free, there will be jobs.

One might suppose, too, that with 10 percent economic growth, there would be more than enough prosperity flowing to hire people for every manner of work. It’s not as if human beings will become useless. AI is great at routine tasks but terrible at judgment and creativity. There will be more, not less, of a market for those skills in an AI/robot world.

Therefore, there is no reason to suppose that the AI revolution will create mass unemployment over the long term. It’s reasonable to expect disruption and dislocation out of many professions. But if the labor markets are free to adapt, the old jobs will be replaced by new jobs.

In the 20th century, we’ve developed an obsession with unemployment, particularly since the Great Depression. The entire reason for this problem traces to controls on the labor market, privileges flowing to unions, restrictions on wage levels, and attempts to keep the market from adapting. High unemployment is a sure sign that the labor market is not free.

In a genuine free market, there would be no unemployment at all simply because it’s the nature of the world always to call forth human labor for some purpose and at some price.

Musk proposes that the U.S. government offer huge benefits in the form of income support for the unemployed. There are now 170 million people in the labor force. If 20 million of them are displaced by AI/robotics and each person is given $100,000 a year, that’s an astronomical expenditure of $2 trillion a year—exactly the amount that Musk sought to cut from the federal budget.

To match that figure with a money supply increase would mean nearly a 9 percent increase in M2 each year, which would certainly be hugely inflationary, all else equal. To stop that inflation, economic growth would have to be 10 percent and higher, which is highly unlikely. As a result, such expenditure would certainly mean a dramatic degradation in the purchasing power of the dollar.

No inflation, promises Musk, but he is likely wrong and the rest of society and the world would be stuck with the results.

Putting all these workers on permanent welfare would stop labor markets from adjusting to reflect new technologies. Why would anyone take a job if he can sign up for a basic income from the taxpayers? Such a proposal is completely contrary to any conception of a free market.

There is another feature here. Putting millions or tens of millions on permanent income support would drain creativity, energy, and productivity from the markets. It would be the greatest subsidy that sloths ever enjoyed. This would be a disaster for the human spirit.

We saw how universal income worked in the COVID years with stimulus payments.

It led to fraud, demoralization, and inflation. Making such a policy permanent would do the same and worse.

Remember the first Musk principle: “Any given government program will become the opposite of its name.”

What this points to is the general tendency to oversell and mask especially in government. It’s the same for universal basic income. It would not and could not be universal and it will degrade the lives of everyone it touches.

Tyler Durden Wed, 05/06/2026 - 17:00

Iran Oil Official In Surprise Admission: 'Fate Of Our Refineries Now At Risk' As US Blockade Begins To Bite Summary

• Iran oil sector official admits "serious threat" - telling NYT: "export of our oil and energy and the fate of our refineries is now at risk."

• US Navy jet fires on Iran-flagged tanker trying to reach Iranian waters & port.

• Axios reports that the White House is nearing a preliminary deal with Iran to end the war, as Trump post appears to offer olive branch. Other reports say just hammering out at 'framework' for 'monthlong' talks.

• White House says it expects a response to the latest offer within 48 hours.

• Iran's initial response via media & national security spox: US demands are unrealistic & do not reflect reality, & Axios report based on too much 'speculation'.

• A key caveat of the US offered deal is that Iran would commit to a moratorium on uranium enrichment, & Washington wants a 20-year ban on this; Iran & China FMs coordinate messaging in Beijing, denying Iran's intent to build nuclear bomb.

//--> //--> //--> US x Iran permanent peace deal by June 30, 2026?
Yes 44% · No 56%
View full market & trade on Polymarket

*  *  *

Surprisingly Frank Admission Out of Iran's Oil Sector

An Iranian energy official just conceded something in a surprise admission that the US naval blockade has begun to bite the Islamic Republic's oil industry. According to new reporting in the NY Times:

The blockade has halted Iran’s oil exports, choking off crucial revenues, and the country risks running out of places to store its oil. It is also affecting the import of other goods, forcing Iran to seek alternative routes through neighboring countries and its smaller ports on the Caspian Sea. And the economic pain inside Iran, already dire before the war, is becoming much worse.

“The sea blockade is a much more serious threat than even war, and the current stalemate must be broken because the export of our oil and energy and the fate of our refineries is now at risk,” said Hamid Hosseini, an expert on Iran’s oil sector who serves on the energy committee of Iran's Chamber of Commerce, in an interview from Tehran.

This as Kpler has stated based on its data that since the US blockade took effect on April 13, no Iranian oil-laden tankers have been able to exit the strait. 

"The bottom line is that Iran could run out of storage space in about 25 to 30 days if the blockade is not lifted, according to Homayoun Falakshahi, Kpler’s head of oil analysis," continues the Wednesday report. "Other experts have given different estimates ranging from a few weeks to a month or more." Last month we offered the following, saying a likely 15 days - probably followed with a few weeks left on the clock before the Iranians run out of storage space...

Tehran Timeline: Iran Has 15 Days Until Its Oil Industry Begins Full Shut-Ins https://t.co/21WPtRfINW

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) April 22, 2026

As for the current Trump blockade strategy, another analyst told the Times, "The blockade really is about putting a financial deadline on the Islamic Republic’s head."

US Jet Fires On Iranian Tanker Trying To Pass

So much for that ceasefire and alleged 'pause' in US naval blockade actions, as things just took another escalatory turn. In this case, a rare live fire incident unfolded Wednesday in Gulf waters as a US jet launched from the Lincoln carrier fired on and possibly disabled an Iranian-flagged tanker, per the officials US Central Command statement:

U.S. forces operating in the Gulf of Oman enforced blockade measures by disabling an Iranian-flagged unladen oil tanker attempting to sail toward an Iranian port at 9 a.m. ET, May 6.

U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) forces observed M/T Hasna as it transited international waters enroute to an Iranian port on the Gulf of Oman. American forces issued multiple warnings and informed the Iranian-flagged vessel it was in violation of the U.S. blockade.

After Hasna’s crew failed to comply with repeated warnings, U.S. forces disabled the tanker’s rudder by firing several rounds from the 20mm cannon gun of a U.S. Navy F/A-18 Super Hornet launched from USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN 72). Hasna is no longer transiting to Iran.

The Pentagon/CENTCOM statement then emphasized, "The U.S. blockade against ships attempting to enter or depart Iranian ports remains in full effect. CENTCOM forces continue to act deliberately and professionally to ensure compliance." Tehran's response to this will be interesting, and follows prior alleged attacks this week on the UAE.

Illustrative: F/A-18 Hornet and Super Hornet fighter jets, via US Navy 'Framework' Being Hammered Out for 'Monthlong Period of Talks'

Iran's Foreign Ministry has said that Iran's response to the United States has not yet been presented to mediator Pakistan, as the WSJ reports that the US and Iranian sides are currently trying to hammer out a one-page memorandum of understanding which features 14-points. This would "lay out a framework" - the report says, for a "monthlong period of talks to end the war."

Given that agreement cannot even be found on the 'framework' for future talks, it seems the process is not very advanced at all - but is perhaps still back at square one, with headlines in the US way out front, and likely overly optimistic. 

CNN citing the White House: "The White House received positive feedback from Pakistani mediators on Tuesday that the Iranians were progressing toward a compromise." And more from WSJ:

Iran’s mission to the UN said that "the only viable solution in the Strait of Hormuz is clear: a permanent end to the war, the lifting of the maritime blockade, and the restoration of normal passage."

Key Timing of Wang-Araghchi Meeting in Beijing

During Iranian Foreign Minister Araghchi's visit to Beijing on Wednesday, China's Foreign Minister Wang Yi pushed for the rapid reopening of the Strait of Hormuz and a halt to the fighting. Araghchi echoed the urgency, saying, "Currently, it is possible to resolve the issue of reopening the Strait of Hormuz as soon as possible." Wang called for a "comprehensive ceasefire" and stressed that “the international community shares a common concern for restoring normal and safe passage through the Strait," urging swift action.

The coordinated messaging reflects shared economic and strategic interests, especially as US naval actions have disrupted Iranian oil flows to China. Wang also signaled support for Tehran’s position, stating China "appreciates Iran’s pledge to not develop nuclear weapons," while Iran continues to insist its nuclear program is peaceful and maintains its right to uranium enrichment as a matter of sovereignty.

Wang reinforced Beijing’s stance by warning that "a comprehensive ceasefire brooks no delay" and that negotiations must continue, while US Secretary of State Marco Rubio has called on China to pressure Iran to ease its blockade of the strait.

Alarmed Reaction from Israel

An Israeli official cited in Times of Israel said Israel did not know that President Trump was close to a deal with Iran to end the fighting and reopen the Strait of Hormuz, even as global headlines pointed to progress. The official said Israel had been preparing for escalation, reflecting recent reports that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's government was waiting for US approval to resume its aerial campaign following 38 days of strikes under Operation Epic Fury.

US messaging has shifted rapidly. with Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Tuesday having announced the end of Operation Epic Fury and a pivot to Project Freedom focused on reopening Hormuz, while Trump later declared a pause to allow negotiations. The mixed signals from Washington created confusion as diplomacy and military positioning unfolded simultaneously.

Both Iran and Israel signaled readiness to escalate despite the diplomatic push. Iran warned its "finger is on the trigger," while Israeli military chief Lt. Gen. Eyal Zamir said forces have multiple targets prepared inside Iran and remain on high alert. He emphasized ongoing coordination with US forces and readiness to resume a broad campaign if fighting restarts.

More Official Iran Denials: Too Much 'Speculation'

The latest response out of Tehran via Tasnim: "Despite claims by US media that Iran and the US are close to a final one-page agreement to end the war, Iran has not yet given an official response to the Americans' final text, which contains some unacceptable clauses."

And separately Iran's ISNA calls parts of the Axios report "speculation" - also reiterating the country has rejected some recent US proposals, as they are "unrealistic". However, an Iranian spokesperson has said that Iran is indeed "reviewing the US proposal to end the war."

Trump Admits: 'Too Soon'

And now a bit of rapid narrative reversal, coming from President Trump himself, after once again a likely premature early morning Axios report with overly optimistic language. Trump's fresh words are via the NY Post:

President Donald Trump said it’s "too soon" to plan peace talks with Iran despite reports of a near deal, downplaying prospects of imminent negotiations in Pakistan. He warned that if Iran accepts terms, hostilities could end and the Strait of Hormuz reopen—but failure to agree would trigger intensified military action.

Indeed the Iranian reaction issued via media reports also suggests this is the case, that all the talk of an agreement being close is premature, and there remains immense hurdles and a long way to go. Axios' Barak Ravid still insists that "the sources said this was the closest the parties had been to an agreement since the war began."

Initial Word From Tehran: Doesn't Reflect Reality

Iranian initial reaction through its media: "What US media outlets are publishing about the details of the negotiations does not reflect the reality of what is happening, according to AI Araby citing Iranian Sources."

"Progress has been made in talks with Washington through Pakistan, but it has not yet reached a level that would lead to an agreement," the statement says. The Iranians are also clearly sticking by their approach which says the nuclear issue is a non-starter and that talks must focus on opening Hormuz and finding a final end to the conflict. "The negotiations are focused on ending the war, not the nuclear issue," the statement in Al Araby continues.

And then the final criticism of Washington's approach: "The negotiations are still facing the intransigent American approach and excessive demands." And further, this: 

Ebrahim Rezaei dismissed U.S. demands as unrealistic, saying Washington won’t gain through conflict what it failed to secure in talks. He added Iran is ready to act and warned of a severe, regret-inducing response to any provocation.

Here is the full statement from the Iranian Spokesperson of the National Security and Foreign Policy Commission (via machine translation):

Trump Issues Carrot & Stick

The below is a fresh Trump Truth Social Post on Wednesday morning, warning the Iranians that the Hormuz Strait must be "open to all". However, the president continues, if Tehran doesn't agree then "the bombing starts" and it will be at a "much higher level and intensity than it was before". 

All of this has followed an awkward 24 hours of drastically different signals coming from various top officials of the US administration.

Marco Rubio says the goal of the war in Iran is now to restore it "back to the way it was" before Trump started the war in Iran pic.twitter.com/G1E9qyxMc4

— Headquarters (@HQNewsNow) May 5, 2026

WH Expects Iranian Response In Next 48 Hours

Axios reports that the White House is nearing a preliminary deal with Iran to end the war. This is based on a 14-point, one-page memorandum that creates a 30-day negotiating window for a broader nuclear and Strait of Hormuz deal and follows President Trump's announcement last night of "great progress" and a "complete and final" deal nearing. 

"The U.S. expects Iranian responses on several key points in the next 48 hours.

Nothing has been agreed yet, but sources said this was the closest the parties had been to an agreement since the war began," Axios wrote in the report.

Here are the key points:

• Iran would commit to a moratorium on uranium enrichment. The duration is still under negotiation, with the U.S. pushing for 20 years, Iran offering five, and sources suggesting 12 to 15 years may be the likely spot.

• Iran would also pledge not to seek nuclear weapons, accept enhanced inspections, potentially halt underground nuclear facility operations, and possibly remove highly enriched uranium from the country.

• The U.S. would gradually lift sanctions and release billions of dollars in frozen Iranian funds.

• Shipping restrictions through the Hormuz chokepoint and the U.S. naval blockade would be gradually lifted during the 30-day talks. If negotiations fail, U.S. forces could restore the blockade or resume military action.

Axios said talks are being led by Trump envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner with top Iranian officials, both directly and through mediators.

News of this sparked risk on in U.S. equity index futures, WTI fell to the $95-a-barrel handle, and U.S. Treasury yields dipped.

Market Response:

S&P500 Futs

Brent Futs

WTI Futs

UST10Y

BTC/USD

developing...

Tyler Durden Wed, 05/06/2026 - 16:45

JPM Tried $1 Million Payoff To Bury Banker's Sexual Assault Claims Before Daily Mail Bombshell

Views on JPMorgan banker Lorna Hajdini's Bloomberg profile surged on Wednesday afternoon.

Why?

The Wall Street Journal has released a new report stating that JPMorgan reportedly offered former investment banker Chirayu Rana $1 million to settle his sexual assault, harassment, and racial discrimination claims against Hajdini before he filed the lawsuit.

Rana's lawsuit was refiled on Monday after being withdrawn for a week. The lawsuit went viral after a Daily Mail report, which was later followed by a New York Post article citing sources who said the bank "found no evidence of wrongdoing" and Hajdini's lawyer, who rejected the claims in the suit.

"The original lawsuit was not withdrawn," said David Kramer, Rana's lawyer. "After filing, the court clerk informed us that the suit required review and sign-off from the judge before being formally filed under a pseudonym. Upon signature by the judge yesterday, the suit was formally filed under a pseudonym."

Rana alleges that Hajdini sexually assaulted him and that co-workers subjected him to racial harassment related to his Nepalese background.

JPM's settlement offer was reportedly intended to avoid litigation and reputational damage. JPM maintains that the claims are baseless.

The report stated that Rana's lawyers did not accept the $1 million offer and later countered JPM with a proposed settlement of $11.75 million.

Rana joined JPM's leveraged finance team in May 2024, filed an internal HR complaint in May 2025, was placed on paid leave, and later left the bank. He then joined private equity firm Bregal Sagemount in October 2025 but was reportedly let go last month.

"If you don't f— me soon, I'm going to ruin you… Never forget, I f—ing own you," Hajdini allegedly said, as detailed in the suit. "If you don't f— my brains out tonight, I'm going to sabotage your promotion."

The lawsuit continued, "She then told Plaintiff to suck her toes, repeating that she would facilitate his promotion and bonus."

Latest on Polymarket:

//--> //--> Chirayu Rana sued?
Yes 80% · No 21%
View full market & trade on Polymarket

 

//--> //--> Chirayu Rana sued?
Yes 80% · No 21%
View full market & trade on Polymarket

 

//--> //--> Chirayu Rana sued?
Yes 80% · No 21%
View full market & trade on Polymarket

Hajdini's lawyers continue to reject Rana's claims: "She never dated this individual, never had a sexual or romantic encounter with him of any kind, and never gave him any drugs. She maintains that his false claims are entirely fabricated and tarnishing her reputation."

Tyler Durden Wed, 05/06/2026 - 16:40

DC Police Officials Disciplined Over Allegations Of Manipulating Crime Data

Authored by Bryan Hyde via American Greatness,

Multiple high-ranking officials in the Washington, DC Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) are facing termination in connection with allegations about how they handled and possibly manipulated crime statistics in the district.

Breitbart reports that three MPD officials told The Washington Post that “multiple high-ranking” officials—all captains or above, all in leadership—were given “papers saying the department intends to fire them.”

According to a DC Police Union press release, the anticipated terminations are directly related to an investigation into allegations that the officials engaged in direct manipulation of crime data to minimize the level of crime in DC.

The union, which represents 3,000 MPD officers, welcomed the decision to terminate the officials, saying, “These actions, tied directly to the department’s completed Internal Affairs investigation into the deliberate manipulation of crime data, mark a long-overdue step toward justice and the restoration of integrity with MPD.”

The Washington Post reports, “The District has reported a decline in overall crime in recent years after a historic spike in 2023. But some in D.C. police circles have long complained that certain managers routinely reduced the severity of crime classifications to make their police districts appear safer or avoid criticism from top department brass.”

In some districts, armed home invasions were written down as “trespassing” instead, dropping a vioIent felony to a low-level misdemeanor, in order to manipulate the crime stats.

The 13 individuals who were served termination papers have not been fired yet as they are entitled to due process under the department’s general orders.

Interim MPD Chief Jeffrey Carroll said, “The administrative process must be allowed to take its course, and that process is outlined in our MPD general orders.”

Carroll added, “Let me be clear, we have made meaningful progress over the last three years in reducing crime. Homicides, shootings and carjackings have fallen steadily since 2023.”

NBC 4 reports that three of the high-level officials worked very closely with former Chief Pamela Smith, including her second-in-command and at least one assistant chief who oversaw patrol in half of DC.

Tyler Durden Wed, 05/06/2026 - 16:20

Inside The Moscow Meeting That Laid Bare Iran's Weak Hand

Authored by Simon Watkins via oilprice.com,

• The Moscow meeting reinforced a long-standing imbalance, with Iran seeking deeper support while Russia offered only vague diplomatic backing.
• The 20-year Iran–Russia deal structurally favors Moscow, especially in energy and trade terms, leaving Tehran with limited economic and strategic upside.
• Russia’s growing military and economic strain reduces its ability to support Iran, exposing the fragility of the partnership.

Iran has a long history of being screwed over by Russia, and last week’s meeting in Moscow between Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi and Russian President Vladimir Putin over the U.S.–Israel–Iran war suggests nothing in that dynamic is about to change, according to extremely well-placed sources on both sides who spoke exclusively to OilPrice.com over the weekend. On the one hand, Tehran’s perennially baseless optimism that “this time will be different” was on full display in Araghchi’s excited praise for the marvels of the two countries’ so called ‘strategic relationship’. On the other hand, Moscow responded with all the warmth of an international telephone operator: Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said only that Russia stands ready to offer “goodwill or mediation services”, with no indication of any upgrade to the relationship service package. It fits so neatly into the familiar pattern of this abusive relationship that one wonders whether social services should be called. Or perhaps Moscow’s disinterest is merely an act — a way of masking the deep and broad assistance from Tehran that it so clearly craves?

The theoretical basis of this relationship is the 20-year comprehensive cooperation deal between Iran and Russia -- formally titled The Treaty on the Basis of Mutual Relations and Principles of Cooperation between Iran and Russia -- approved by Iran’s late Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, on 18 January 2024, as I exclusively reported in OilPrice.com at the time. It replaced the 10-year deal signed in March 2001 (extended twice by five years) and was expanded in duration, scope and scale, particularly in the defence and energy sectors. In several respects, the new deal complemented key elements of the all-encompassing Iran-China 25-Year Comprehensive Cooperation Agreement, first revealed anywhere in the world in my 3 September 2019 article and analysed in full in my latest book on the new global oil market order. The similarities were deliberate, designed to make the division of the key strategic assets most coveted by Moscow and Beijing easier to manage in practice. Related: China Orders Refiners to Ignore U.S. Sanctions on Key Iranian Oil Buyers

As with much of Russia’s foreign policy dealings, the devil was in the details. As a sign of how things would pan out for Tehran in the rest of the document, Russia stood to benefit at Iran’s expense in the key energy sector to begin with. The deal gave Russia the first right of extraction in the Iranian section of the Caspian Sea, including the potentially huge Chalous field. This came on top of Russia’s startlingly brazen theft in 2019 of at least US$3.2 trillion in revenues from Iran through the lost value of energy products across their shared Caspian assets going forward. The same right of first extraction for Russia was also applied in the new 20-year deal to several of Iran’s major oil and gas fields in the Khorramshahr and nearby Ilam provinces that border Iraq, which China had not already prioritised for its own needs. Several of these sites had the broader financial and geopolitical benefits attached to their being shared fields with Iraq. This status allowed the effective free movement of Iranian oil disguised as Iraqi oil, and extended Tehran’s influence over Baghdad through its political, economic, and military proxies. By extension, it did the same for Moscow and Beijing, which used this as a springboard to further project their influence across the Iran-dominated Shia Crescent of Power.

This powerbase in Iran and Iraq had also been central to Russia’s longstanding plan to build a ‘land bridge’ to the Mediterranean Sea coast of another of its key global assets at the time -- Syria. This would enable Moscow to exponentially increase weapons delivery into southern Lebanon and the Golan Heights area of Syria to be used in attacks on Israel. The core aim of this policy was to provoke a conflict in the Middle East that would draw in the U.S. and its allies into an unwinnable war, and was seen as a natural extension of the Israel-Hamas War that had begun after the terrorist organisation’s murderous spree across Israel on 7 October 2023. Given its centrality to Moscow’s plans, then, Iran was at that point still confident that the Kremlin would meet its other promises in the 20-year deal, despite the shenanigans surrounding the energy side of the treaty as it related to the Caspian’s oil and gas riches. “Iran had long been asking  Russia for the means to defend itself better against any attacks, especially those that might come from Israel or the U.S. -- in particular for the S-400 missile defence system and Sukhoi Su-34 and 35 fighter jets,” a very senior source working closely with Iran’s Petroleum Ministry exclusively told OilPrice.com. “But these requests have continually been subject to further conditionality by Russia, such as upgrading key airports and seaports that Moscow sees as especially useful for dual-use by its air force and navy, and which are also close to major oil and gas facilities.

The terms of the individual defence and energy deals were also made increasingly onerous for Iran by Russia as preconditions for the final delivery of Iran’s requests. According to this source -- and confirmed to OilPrice.com at the time by a very senior source working closely with the Russian government -- the price of all items traded between Russia and Iran, including military and energy hardware, had been formalised in the 20-year deal on terms that were not in Iran’s favour. For Iranian goods exported to Russia, Tehran would receive the cost of production plus 8 per cent. However, these export sales to Russia would not be transferred to Iran, but rather would be held as credit in the Central Bank of Russia (CBR). Moreover, Iran would receive a huge markdown on US dollar/Rouble or Euro/Rouble exchange rates used to calculate its credits in the CBR. Conversely, for Russian goods exported to Iran, Moscow would receive the payment in advance of delivery and at an exchange rate that benefited Russia. Moreover, the base price before any exchange rate calculations would be set at the highest price that Russia has received in the previous 180 days for whichever product it was selling to Iran. Moscow ensured itself the highest possible price by selling the relevant product to Belarus at a very large premium shortly beforehand, so establishing the required pricing benchmark. Payments for goods and services falling outside the direct finance route between the central banks of the two countries would be handled through interbank transfers between Iranian and Russian banks. Transactions involving renminbi would also be routed through China’s Cross-Border Interbank Payment System, Beijing’s alternative to the globally-dominant Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunications system.

The additional problem for Iran now is that Russia is increasingly unable to provide even this limited assistance to it as its own troubles mount. Although U.S. President Donald Trump’s stance on Russia’s ’10-Day Special Military Operation’ -- at the time of writing, in its 1,530th day -- has broadly favoured Putin and his ability to keep funding the conflict, things have turned very recently. The removal of pro-Putin Hungarian President Viktor Orbán in last month’s general election removed the obstacle that blocked €90 billion in European Union (E.U.) aid to Ukraine, with more to come as and when needed. This comes at a time when, according to military sources, Russia is only able to replace 70 per cent of the soldiers it is losing on the battlefield -- an unsustainable loss, which brings with it the deeply politically unsettling prospect of having to widen conscription out to the big cities, including Moscow and St. Petersburg. Moreover, Ukraine is now relentlessly hitting key oil and gas infrastructure targets deep in Russia, reducing its ability to monetise these exports to fund its Ukraine campaign. Crude oil export data suggested the rise in prices, plus the easing of U.S. sanctions on countries buying Russian oil, boosted Russian revenues to 2.3 times their December-February levels in the third week of the Iran war. But by the fourth week, Ukrainian drone strikes on energy-producing infrastructure reduced Russia's earnings by US$1 billion, eradicating around two-thirds of the previous week’s gains. And destroying Russia’s energy infrastructure using Ukraine-manufactured long-range drones -- without any U.S. assistance and using E.U. funding -- is now a priority target.

As it stands, Iran has once again bet on a partner that takes far more than it ever gives. And as Russia’s own position deteriorates, even the illusion of reciprocity is evaporating. Tehran may soon discover that Moscow’s promises were always worth less than the paper they were written on. With Russia now struggling to sustain its own war effort, the chances of it honouring its commitments to Iran are shrinking by the day. And when the Kremlin finally admits it has nothing left to offer, Tehran will be left with no air defences, no aircraft, no navy, and no leverage — only the bill for a partnership that never paid out.

By Simon Watkins for Oilprice.com

Tyler Durden Wed, 05/06/2026 - 15:40

World Starts To "Build" Around Hormuz; Japan Buying UAE Oil Bypassing Strait As ADNOC To Spend $55 Billion On Pipelines

Long after the Iran war is just a bookmark in the history books, one distinct consequence will persist: much of the world, at least the part that does not fall under the Chinese sphere of influence, will do everything it can to avoid the Strait of Hormuz and failing that, have a Plan B. Just like when the Biden admin weaponized the US Dollar in 2022 by booting Russia from SWIFT after the Ukraine war, and in the process started the biggest gold and bitcoin rally in history as the rest of the world parked its savings in non-USD assets, so the world's most important oil choke point will never again be viewed again in the same way after Iran launched dozens of rockets at the ships transiting it. 

This shift in perception is what James Thorne, chief market strategist of WellingtonAltus, called "Iran’s Historic Mistake"; he explains it as follows: 

By weaponizing the Strait of Hormuz, Iran committed a strategic blunder of historic proportions. Tehran meant to punish America. Instead, it exposed every power built on imported energy, vulnerable sea lanes, and the delusion that globalization repealed geography. China is exposed. Europe is exposed. Britain is exposed. Iran has created a world where hard resource power decides outcomes.

And the punchline:

Iran’s mistake is that once Hormuz becomes structurally unreliable, the world builds around it. That means bypass corridors, revived pipeline politics, and urgent planning for routes linking Aqaba to Mediterranean outlets near Gaza and the long-stalled Basra-to-Aqaba pipeline. The old energy order is cracking. The UAE’s OPEC exit signals cartel discipline giving way to national advantage under pressure.

The full note can be found here, and we didn't have long to wait to see the world it predicted begin to emerge. 

Earlier today, Nikkei Asia reported that Japan agreed to buy an additional 20 million barrels of crude oil from the United Arab Emirates as Tokyo continues pursuing alternative supply channels amid the effective blockade of the Strait of Hormuz. Japan used 2.36 million barrels of crude oil per day in 2025, the economy ministry reports. Based on this average, the additional 20 million barrels from the UAE could cover eight to nine days' worth of demand, so much more is coming. 

The deal was finalized Tuesday after Ryosei Akazawa, Japan's minister of economy, trade and industry, met with the Emirati industry minister in Abu Dhabi. Akazawa told reporters after the meeting that he had requested increased oil supplies for Japan. 

Roughly 40% of Japan's crude oil imports comes from the UAE. The Middle Eastern country, which left the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries on Friday, intends to gradually increase oil production at its own discretion, which could lead to more cooperation with Japan.

Japan will pick up the Emirati oil at the port of Fujairah on the UAE's eastern coast, which lies on the Gulf of Oman, allowing for crude exports without going through the Strait of Hormuz. 

The war in the Middle East -- a region on which Japan has relied for more than 90% of its oil supply -- has spurred Tokyo to approach other oil producers. It reached a deal last month to procure 1 million barrels of crude from Mexico. 

Recently Japan's government said that around 60% of the oil Japan needs this month can be sourced through channels that do not involve shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, with releases from domestic stockpiles covering the remaining 40%.

Expect many more such deals from other Asian countries as passage through Hormuz will be one big question mark for years to come, absent a pro-Western regime taking control in Iran. 

Realizing the coming demand flood for its Fujairah-laden oil, and in anticipation of its post-OPEC renaissance, on May 3rd, UAE state energy company Abu Dhabi National Oil Company (ADNOC) Group, announced plans to award AED200bn (US$55bn) in upstream and downstream project contracts between 2026-28, at the 'Make it with ADNOC' forum in Abu Dhabi.

Omar Al Nuaimi, ADNOC’s Acting Group Chief, stated that ADNOC is moving into a new phase of accelerated, world-scale delivery to meet rising global energy demand. ''ADNOC is proud to continue reinforcing our role as a catalyst of the UAE’s industrial growth and an enabler of the Make it in the Emirates initiative,'' he told the Emirates News Agency (WAM) on the sidelines of ‘Make it With ADNOC’ Forum, held ahead of the Make it in the Emirates 2026.

''As part of this effort, we announced today at the ‘Make it with ADNOC’ Forum, our plan to award AED200 billion in projects over the next two years as part of our CAPEX approved by the Board in November,'' he said, explaining that the planned project awards span ADNOC’s upstream and downstream operations and usher in a new phase of project delivery that will supercharge UAE’s manufacturing capacity, strengthen industrial resilience, deepen the impact of the company’s In-Country Value program and advance the ‘Make it in the Emirates’ initiative.

In a note from Goldman (available here to pro subs), the bank writes that management characterized the announcement as marking the execution phase of its strategy, focused on scale, pace, and delivery to meet rising global energy demand while reinforcing the UAE's industrial base. The forum convened >400 participants, linking EPC contractors with qualified UAE-based manufacturers under the in-country value program. The award pipeline spans the entire upstream-to-downstream value chain, focusing on:

• Capacity expansion: Scaling of crude oil and gas production capacity alongside deeper downstream integration
• In-Country Value (ICV): Channelling spend through the Local+ program to prioritize UAE-manufactured inputs.
• Supply chain resilience: Localizing critical equipment sourcing to mitigate global disruption and cost inflation risk.

According to Goldman, this announcement represents the first tranche of its previously announced $150BN capex program for 2030. The bank views the announcement as positive for key enablers such as ADNOC Drilling and ADNOC L&S, as they stand to be the primary beneficiaries of the upstream and downstream award pipeline. Furthermore, the signaled US$55bn commitment over 2026-28 serves as a strong signal of ADNOC Group's expansion roadmap. Goldman sees upside risk to consensus numbers for the key enabler subsidiaries given the potential for accelerated execution timelines and higher-than-guided growth targets as ADNOC ramps up capacity across the value chain. 

More in the Goldman note available to pro subs.

Tyler Durden Wed, 05/06/2026 - 15:20

'We Need People To Come Back': Dubai's Tourism Industry Reels As Foreigners Flee

Via Middle East Eye

Dubai is facing an existential crisis with the US and Israeli war on Iran forcing tourism numbers to fall sharply, with widespread hotel closures and job losses decimating the global tourism hotspots' hospitality sector.

On Monday, Dubai Airports reported that first-quarter passenger traffic was down by at least 2.5 million from the same period in 2025, with March seeing a 66 percent drop in passenger numbers as travelers chose to steer clear of the Gulf. 

Empty beds are pictured before high-rise buildings along a beach at Jumeirah Beach Residence (JBR) in Dubai on March 11, 2026. via AFP

The company did not specify forecasts for this year but on Saturday, in a bid to kickstart tourism, the UAE announced that all air travel restrictions that were put in place after Iran launched retaliatory strikes on all six Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries that house or cooperate closely with US forces had been lifted. 

In a post on their official X account, the Civil Aviation Authority wrote: "Our decision came following a comprehensive assessment of operational and security conditions, in coordination with the relevant authorities". The statement was clearly meant to relay confidence to international travelers, especially after several European airlines announced that they would be suspending flights to the Middle East. 

Workers and business owners in Dubai, who spoke to the Middle East Eye on condition of anonymity due GCC-wide restrictions on public statements about the effects of Tehran’s attacks, say it will still take some time to see if the announcement will restore confidence among travelers and investors.

Charity, a Kenyan hotel worker said the mid-priced hotel she works at was definitely affected by the 1.4 million people who travelled through the UAE over the first two weeks of March. During the Muslim month of Ramadan, when Iranian missile and drone attacks were at their worst, the hotel, part of a US-based chain, was full of stranded passengers who would meet with Emirates Airlines representatives in the lobby. 

During the month, the hotel's pool was closed to guests and by the final days, guests staying in the higher floors of the 20-floor building were moved to the lower floors as a precautionary measure. After that, though, she said "things really slowed down for a few weeks".

She said she hoped the announcement would provide some assurance to travelers. "We'll see over the next week if people really start to come back," she said while helping a long-time American traveler. "We need your people [foreign tourists] to come back," she added.

So far, even longtime passengers say there has been a noticeable shift in the mood at Dubai International, which has been the world’s busiest airport for international passenger traffic for 12 consecutive years.

Samina, a South Asian NGO worker who travels between South Asia, the Gulf and North America, said the change was particularly noticeable in her most recent trips over the two months.

"Coming in, it's empty," she said of Terminal 3, home of Emirates Airlines. "Terminal 1 and 2 are ghost towns," she said of the buildings that are home to other international carriers and FlyDubai, the UAE's budget airline.

She said international airlines suspending flights to the region have definitely taken a toll on traffic, "Every time you get in, it's all the same transit passengers."

According to Dubai Airports, only 51 out of 90 airlines have resumed their operations at the airport, with European and US airlines facing difficulties securing insurance cover due to government travel advisories

'Ethos of Dubai was shaken'

For its part, Dubai is working hard to support and reassure its residents. Travelling around the city, there is an abundance of UAE flags outside homes and businesses and on digital signs and billboards along the highways.

At the City Walk shopping center there are massive electronic signs thanking UAE residents in Arabic and English. Pictures of UAE President Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan are emblazoned along major roads with the statement: May our nation remain in God’s protection". Other signs show Emirati families saluting the flag with the same words.

However, longtime residents and business owners say the impact of the intercepted missiles and drones was felt almost immediate.

Tatiana, a Russian national who runs a logistics company for businesses looking to setup shop in the Gulf, and she said even she was shocked at how quickly the mood shifted for existing and prospective businesses. "Within the first two weeks people [said] it's no longer worth [living here]. They weren't scared per se, they just felt like it's no longer worth it". 

"Businesses were suddenly liquidating their assets." She said her family was now looking at options in Europe to gradually shift to.

Antoine, an editor who helps train amateur writers said one of his clients who works at an advertising agency was left with the burden of those liquidations. "She was in charge of finding 1,000 workers in the UAE to let go of," he said. Antoine was particularly struck by the fact that even an advertising firm would be so immediately impacted.

"You'd think advertising would be a war-proof industry," he said. Tatiana said her work has been particularly affected by the attacks.  "Our whole business is predicated on assuring people that the UAE is a safe, convenient place to do business," she said.

Her statement is almost identical to what Arjun, one of the 3.5 to 4.3 million Indian residents of the UAE, said outside a late evening screening of the Michael Jackson biopic. Arjun said he was happy to see the screening at near capacity, hoping it was a sign of a gradual return to normal. "The entire ethos of Dubai as this place free from conflict was shaken," he said.

Tyler Durden Wed, 05/06/2026 - 15:00

'Still So Early On This Journey': Morgan Stanley Launches Lower-Cost Crypto Trading

Just a week after Amy Oldenburg, Morgan Stanley’s head of digital assets, spent the better part of an hour making a case for bitcoin that few clients have heard in full (a gap she says is the industry’s most urgent problem), the bank announces the launch of crypto trading on E*Trade, charging 50bps in a pilot that undercuts rivals like Coinbase, Robinhood, and Charles Schwab.

CoinDesk reports that Morgan Stanley’s Head of Wealth Management, Jed Finn, said the initiative goes beyond offering cheaper crypto trading and is aimed at “disintermediating the disintermediators,” framing it as a broader structural shift in how clients access digital assets.

The investment banking giant plans to roll the service out to all 8.6 million ETrade customers later this year.

The latest offering builds on a series of crypto-related moves in recent months, including the launch of a Bitcoin exchange-traded fund, with planned products tied to ether and solana.

Morgan Stanley has also advanced efforts on the infrastructure side, applying for a national trust bank charter that would enable it to directly custody digital assets.

Sources told Bloomberg that the bank is also mulling services that enable conversation of crypto holdings into exchange-traded products without selling and is preparing for potential tokenized equity trading later this year.

These moves are set to amplify competition in a market where Coinbase generated $3.32 billion in consumer transaction revenue in 2025, while Robinhood reported nearly $1 billion in crypto-related revenue.

But, as Bitcoin Magazine reports, the education problem runs deep, according to Oldenburg.

Oldenburg: Bitcoin has an education problem 

Many investors still associate bitcoin with its early history of use by bad actors, and struggle to see past that frame when weighing an allocation. 

Oldenburg said that when clients ask about yield or structured exposure, her team tries to be direct: “you can present it as a yield, but the underlying asset is bitcoin.” That clarity, she said, is still missing from most conversations in the market, and there is “so much more work to do.”

MSBT pulled in more than $100 million in its first week of trading, a strong early signal for a product the bank describes as designed for the full spectrum of its client base rather than a narrow segment. 

But Oldenburg was quick to put that number in context. All of the initial flows came through self-directed accounts, because the fund had not yet been made available on the advisory platform.

She noted that the bank has announced a 2–4% crypto allocation recommendation, and that even with that guidance in place, take-up through advisors has been slow.

The product, she reminded the audience, has been on the market for less than a year.

To bridge that gap, Morgan Stanley is working from the inside out. Oldenburg said the firm is rolling out internal training so that financial advisors can speak to clients on bitcoin with confidence, and that her team spends “hour after hour after hour” on the phone walking clients through models and allocation frameworks. 

She said the bank designs products for clients with different needs and wants its platform to cover each of those needs, including clients who want a direct ETP wrapper, and that spot crypto trading is coming for those on the wealth management side.

On custodians, Oldenburg acknowledged the complexity of the decision. The market has no shortage of providers, and choosing among them was not straightforward, which led the firm to work with more than one. Morgan Stanley ultimately tapped Coinbase and BNY Mellon as custodians for MSBT.

When the conversation turned to high-beta bitcoin plays, Oldenburg called Strategy, the Michael Saylor-led company formerly known as MicroStrategy, “a good friend of Morgan Stanley,” and said the bank has worked alongside it through its evolution. 

She said most of the exposure in that vehicle so far is coming from retail and that “digital credit” as a category will take time to develop.

Morgan Stanley buying bitcoin is “not out of the question”

On the question of banks holding bitcoin on their balance sheets, Oldenburg said it is “not out of the question” if regulatory progress continues, but was measured in framing it. 

The U.S. needs greater alignment among its financial regulators, she said, and for a global firm like Morgan Stanley, the picture is more complex still — each jurisdiction comes with its own framework.

She closed where she began: on the need for research with reach. The market has commentators and personalities that investors trust and follow, she said, and the work ahead is to bring that kind of accessible, grounded analysis into the mainstream. 

“We are still so early on this journey,” she said. “So little allocation. It’s still really early.”

Tyler Durden Wed, 05/06/2026 - 14:40

'Don't Even Think About Selling': Mr. Gold Warns US 'Officially A Banana Republic'

Via Greg Hunter’s USAWatchdog.com,

Last time financial writer and precious metals expert Bill Holter (aka Mr. Gold) was on USAW, he said don’t even think about selling any gold or silver.  One of the big reasons why he is still saying this is the news last week that the US debt to GDP ratio is now at 100%. 

Mr. Gold says, “I have talked for years about how the entire world runs on credit.  What we started this off with is the United States is officially a banana republic.  It’s 100% debt to GDP..."

"When I was in school in the early 1980s, the definition of a banana republic is when it hit 100% debt to GDP. 

In this instance, it is the issuer of the world’s reserve currency that is admitting it is officially a banana republic.  

Everything runs on credit.  The biggest issuer of credit is the United States, and if their credit card gets declined, then what does that do to the real economy? 

Nothing will work.  There will be nothing on shelves.  Stores will be dark. 

Should you store food? 

The answer is yes because something really bad is right in front of us.  It’s a credit collapse.”

So, the Trump Administration is not going to just let everything collapse. 

What is the contingency plan? 

Mr. Gold says, “I think the contingency plan is oil..."

"They went after Maduro.  So, they have taken control of the Venezuelan oil supply.  They want to do the same thing elsewhere. 

I mean President Trump said in his own words, he said basically we are pirates, and we are going to take Iran’s oil. 

I think that’s the plan. 

It is to control more oil and keep the petrodollar system alive.  Is it going to work?  I think, ultimately, it will not work because the numbers are far too upside down at this point.  If you really look under the hood, the Federal Reserve itself is insolvent.  And we have not even talked about derivatives. 

Derivatives are the gorilla in the room.  In the derivative market, you are looking at $2 quadrillion in derivatives.  Once you get things off sides, and an example of that is look at the British yields, they are back to pushing 7%.  They are back to rates that are the same as in 1998.  So, all of the easing is gone. 

Everything runs on credit, and once you gum up credit, you start affecting the real economy.  Then, there is less cash flow in the real economy, and that spills over into the financial economy and financial markets.  Derivatives are the biggest danger.  Warren Buffett calls them mass financial destruction. 

It should not go unnoticed that Berkshire Hathaway is now sitting on $400 billion of cash, which is the biggest hoard they have ever had.  In 1998, the financial media called him an idiot, and what happened in 2000?  Buffett was an idiot again in early 2008.  What happened in late 2008 and 2009? 

Buffett is not an idiot, and for him to say now that there is nothing out there of value to buy and I’d rather have cash, that tells you a pretty big story.”

On silver, Holter says, “I think we are reloading for a much larger event than we saw in November to January."

"That 90 days was spectacular, but I think this next move is going to dwarf that.”  Holter says many big analysts are predicting silver much, much higher by the end of the year.

There is much more in the 42-minute interview.

Join Greg Hunter of USAWatchdog as he goes one-on-one with financial writer and precious metals expert Bill Holter/Mr. Gold as the “credit collapse” in the financial system begins for 5.5.26.

Tyler Durden Wed, 05/06/2026 - 14:20

Blue Energy & GE Vernova Bet On Gas Bridge-To-Nuclear For AI Power

Blue Energy announced a collaboration with GE Vernova to develop the world's first gas-plus-nuclear power plant in Texas.

The project will use two GE Vernova gas turbines to deliver roughly 1 GW starting around 2030. Steam supply will later shift to GE Vernova Hitachi BWRX-300 small modular reactors for up to 1.5 GW of nuclear capacity by 2032. 

Work at the Texas site could begin as early as this year, with a final investment decision expected in 2027.

The plan is similar to other announcements from companies like Oklo and Liberty Energy that plan to deploy gas power turbines at proposed energy sites to initiate power delivery and revenue collection while the longer leg of building the reactor continues in the background. 

Easier said than done, though. The NRC would normally never be involved in a gas energy project, but if it will share facilities with a future nuclear project, then things get a little more interesting. This is why Blue Energy submitted a plan, and recently received approval, for how to involve the NRC with the construction of a gas-to-nuclear site. 

This new sequencing of gas-to-nuclear allows for power delivery to the data center or grid to begin in under four years, compared to as many as ten years if it was a purely nuclear project. 

Depending on the location, it may be too little too late. Especially on the east coast…

Next summer the Eastern seaboard will look like North Korea at night thanks to chatbots pic.twitter.com/NEY97pa1LB

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) May 6, 2026

This is where people usually start pointing fingers at the data center for creating the problem. Blaming hyperscalers though requires looking away from the fact that new power generation is also being delayed to connect to the grid. 

Constellation's restart of the Three Mile Island Reactor is currently facing a four-year delay from PJM. The reactor will be ready to provide clean energy to the grid in 2027, but has been told to wait until 2031 to actually connect. 

Extreme demand from data centers is not the source of the problem. Decades of neglect with grid upgrades are the real reasons for the grid's inability to bolt on new supply and demand, and is now driving costs through the roof. 
 

Tyler Durden Wed, 05/06/2026 - 14:05

Ken Griffin "Doubles Down On Miami" After Mamdani's "Creepy And Weird" Video Vilifying Him

Ken Griffin said New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s push for higher taxes on second homes has reinforced Citadel’s commitment to Miami — and even led the firm to scale up its planned headquarters there, according to Bloomberg.

Speaking Tuesday at the Milken Institute Global Conference, Griffin said Citadel decided to enlarge its Miami office project after Mamdani publicly referenced his $238 million Central Park South penthouse while promoting a new pied-à-terre tax proposal.

“We went to Miami and revised our building plan to make it a bigger office building,” Griffin said. “What the mayor of New York has made clear to my partners, and principally my New York partners, is that we need to double down on our bet in Miami.”

Bloomberg writes that Griffin said he watched Mamdani’s video three times and described it as “creepy and weird.”

He added that the situation brought back memories of his departure from Chicago, where he previously criticized local leadership before moving Citadel and Citadel Securities to Florida.

“Looking at what Mamdani did to me and more broadly is doing to the city of New York is triggering the trauma I went through in Chicago,” Griffin said.

A spokesperson for Mamdani defended the mayor’s stance, saying he supports entrepreneurs but believes New York’s tax structure needs reform so wealthy residents contribute more.

Citadel still has nearly 2,500 employees in New York City and is involved in a separate $6 billion office tower project at 350 Park Avenue. But Griffin suggested Miami has clearly won out.

“What do we do at 350 is still a point of discussion internally, but what is no longer a point of discussion is when we moved from Chicago, there was a debate between New York and Miami,” Griffin said. “It’s unquestionably true that we made the right choice.”

He also took aim at states he views as unfriendly to businesses.

“We want to be in a state that embraces business, that embraces education, that embraces personal freedom and liberty and that embraces people having an opportunity to live the American dream,” Griffin said. “Not a dream of redistributive handouts that leave people dependent on government for their lives and their livelihoods.”

We wrote two weeks ago: "New York City is a global icon and the uncomfortable truth is this: the people Mamdani is turning into political props are the same ones writing the checks. And they have options."

And now it looks as though Ken Griffin is exercising those options...

Tyler Durden Wed, 05/06/2026 - 13:25

 

 

 

At The Money: Focusing on Growth (Not Market Cap) with Rob Arnott, RAFI (May 7, 2026)

Indexes are weighted by their size, primarily market cap. Research Affiliates’ latest index focuses on Growth, rejiggering these indexes based on how fast companies are growing.

Full transcript below.

~~~

About this week’s guest:

Rob Arnott is known as the “godfather of smart beta” and founder of Research Affiliates, which oversees strategies for over $100 billion in assets.

For more info, see:

Professional Bio

Masters in Business

LinkedIn

~~~

 

Find all of the previous At the Money episodes here, and in the MiB feed on Apple Podcasts, YouTube, Spotify, and Bloomberg. And find the entire musical playlist of all the songs I have used on At the Money on Spotify

 

 

 

TRANSCRIPT: Rob Arnott on the Research Affiliates Growth Index

 

Intro
Take a load off Fanny
And (and, and) you put the load right on me
(You put the load right on me)

 

Barry Ritholtz: Traditional market-cap-weighted indexes like the S&P 500 have really done a great job in dominating investor inflows. But today there are concerns that cap weighting is leading to increased market concentration into just a handful of stocks, especially the Mag Seven, higher valuations, and increased risks for investors. How should an index investor think about this? Well, to help us unpack all of it and what it means for your portfolio, let’s bring in Rob Arnott, founder of Research Affiliates. The firm recently put out the Research Affiliates Growth Index, which is different from both cap-weighted ETFs, but also different from equal-weight ETFs.

Barry Ritholtz: So I’m fascinated by this index, which you guys put out. You’re tracking it live today. It’s not yet investible, but I assume there’ll be an ETF out sooner rather than later. Define Raffi. Define the Research Affiliates Growth Index. What are the weights based on? How do you think about alternatives to cap-weighted growth?

Rob Arnott: Sure. Let’s back up just a little bit and challenge one of the basic principles of modern investing and modern finance—the principle that there’s this binary duality of growth and value. If it’s not value, it’s growth. If it’s not growth, it’s value. Pardon me? Those are not one-dimensional. Those are two dimensions. You can have cheap and expensive. You can have fast and slow growing—two completely different dimensions. Our industry has had a fixation on this simple duality, where if it’s cheap, it’s value, and if it’s expensive, it’s growth. No, if it’s expensive, it’s expensive—it’s much simpler. If it’s growth, it’s growth.

Rob Arnott: So to my astonishment, looking back, cap weighted indexing goes back to the fifties as investible portfolios, and growth indexes to the late seventies, and investible growth strategies to the 1980s. Nobody has posed the question, why don’t we look at this fundamentally? Instead of based on valuations, nobody has asked the question, why don’t we create an index that chooses growth stocks based on how fast they’re growing and weights growth stocks based on how big their dollar contribution to the growth of the macro economy is? If you do that—if you choose companies that are growing rapidly and you weight them on the dollar magnitude of that growth—you wind up with an index that over the last 30 years would’ve outperformed Russell Growth by four and a half percent per annum going back almost 30 years.

Barry Ritholtz: Russell Growth, not Russell Value.

Rob Arnott: Correct.

Barry Ritholtz: So if that’s the case, what are we selecting on? It’s not just cap weight, I’m assuming. And I’ve read some of the research—you’re looking at increasing sales, increasing profits, increasing R&D. Explain what goes into the Raffi Growth Index.

Rob Arnott: Sure. Well, there’s an article coming out in the next issue of the Financial Analyst Journal that takes a deep dive. So anyone who’s got access to the FAJ, take a look. For the moment, you can also find it on SSRN—just look up “Arnott Fundamental Growth” and it’ll take you right there. Anyway, if you wanted a growth index that didn’t anchor on expensive stocks but anchored on fast growing companies, how would you instinctively choose to measure that growth? Sales, profits—those are the obvious choices. Slightly less obvious: most growth companies have R&D, and it’s a big enough part of their business that they break it out as a separate item in their P&L. So what about growth in R&D? Because if they’re shrinking their R&D budget, that’s a bad sign. So if you have three different growth rates—growth in sales, growth in profits, and growth in R&D spending—if R&D is available, use all three; if not, use two of the three. You average those growth rates and you’ve got a very good gauge of how fast the company is growing. If it’s growing rapidly enough to be in the top 25%, let’s use it.

Rob Arnott: Here’s a fun factoid: two of the Magnificent Seven don’t make the cut for the Raffi Growth Index.

Barry Ritholtz: Huh? Really? Which two?

Rob Arnott: Take a guess.

Barry Ritholtz: So who’s cutting way back on their R&D and not seeing increases in revenue? Apple and Amazon. I’m just spitballing.

Rob Arnott: You got one out of two.

Barry Ritholtz: So Apple is the first one. Amazon?

Rob Arnott: Amazon. Amazon and Microsoft. Both were growing incredibly fast in the 2010s and have been growing nicely in the 2020s, but not fast enough to make the cut. So they’re left out of the Raffi Growth Index.

Rob Arnott: The index is on Bloomberg—it has been since last March—and it’s already 13 percentage points in less than a year ahead of Russell Growth. So the idea works and it’s exciting. I wish I was on your show to announce that it’s an investible ETF or mutual fund. Not yet.

Barry Ritholtz: When it comes out, when it becomes investible, we’ll have you back. I want to ask you a question about dollar magnitude as opposed to percentage magnitude of growth. Every metric I see is almost always a percentage. You are looking at absolute dollars of growth. Explain the thinking behind this. How does it manifest in performance? How does it work?

Rob Arnott: We select based on percentage growth. You could have a huge company that has sales grow by a hundred billion in a year, and it’s only 10% growth—right? Or 5% growth. And if that’s the case, it’s not a particularly fast-growing company. So percentage growth is used to choose the companies. Now, the two biggest stocks in Raffi Growth are Nvidia and Apple. One has had stupendous growth from a low base. One has had good growth from a high base. Both have had percentage growth fast enough to make the cut. They are both a little over 10% of our index. Now, think what that means. If it’s a 10% weight, that means Nvidia has singularly, all by itself, been 10% of the sales or profit growth in the aggregate US economy.

Barry Ritholtz: Wow.

Rob Arnott: Huge. Apple has been 10% of the aggregate growth in sales or profits of the US economy. So by weighting companies in proportion to the dollar magnitude, you’re not going to introduce a bias toward frothy tiny companies that have had just a big percentage surge. You could have a tiny company that’s grown tenfold, and if you weight it by that tenfold growth, it’s going to get a huge weight—and it’s a tiny company. It might be a flash in the pan.

Barry Ritholtz: So in other words, the percentage gains matter, but so too do the real dollar gains.

Rob Arnott: Exactly right.

Barry Ritholtz: I understand that. So I’m curious about the volatility of this versus traditional cap weighting indexes. How does this compare? Are you getting better performance, but you have to live with a little more volatility?

Rob Arnott: The short answer is you have to live with a little bit more volatility, and you have to live with occasional periods when it will underperform. On average over the last 28 years, it adds four and a half percent a year, plus or minus 7%. So in just a normal disappointing year, it’s going to underperform by about two. In a normal, excellent year, it’s going to outperform by about 12. So since we launched last March, the 13% outperformance means this is a very typical, very normal good year. You have to be willing to take a little bit of volatility, but if you go back, you find that it wins about seven out of 10 years.

Barry Ritholtz: Wow. That’s pretty cool, to say the very least. So, since we’re talking about a lot of, not just large-cap companies, but companies with a substantial economic footprint, my assumption is there aren’t a whole lot of capacity or liquidity constraints. I’m assuming this can ramp up just like an S&P index or what have you.

Rob Arnott: Short answer to your question is, current AUM is zero, so there’s loads of capacity. Longer answer: An educated guess would be that it has about four times the turnover of the S&P, maybe five. So just on that alone, its capacity would be a fourth or a fifth of the S&P. It’s also tilted toward a particular category, not the whole broad market—so that would suggest another haircut. I think its capacity would be 10 to 20% of the S&P. Given that there’s about 15 trillion indexed to the S&P, that would give us something on the order of one and a half to 3 trillion as a capacity.

Barry Ritholtz: So plenty of capacity. Last question. I’ve been watching various narratives come into favor and then fade. We went through a whole blockchain crypto set of narratives. AI seems to be in the midst of its various narratives. When you think about the Research Affiliates Growth Index—the fundamental growth index—does the dominant narrative matter, or is it just redefining its constituents based on what is best working today, what is seeing the highest increases in revenue, profits, and research and development spending?

Rob Arnott: Well, between Raffi—the fundamental index, which has a stark value tilt—and Raffi Growth, which has a stark growth tilt, I like to think that we’re launching a revolution in indexing. I mean, the runway for this is huge. One other observation: we’re quantitative investors. We love testing things. Quantitative investors are addicted to data mining—go back historically and ask, what can I construct that’s worked? We don’t do that. The scientific method means you start with a hypothesis and you only use the data to test the hypothesis. Our hypothesis was: if you select companies on how fast they’re growing and weight them on the magnitude of their contribution to economic growth, this is an idea that might work pretty darn well. And lo and behold, it does. The back tests of Raffi when we launched it 20 years ago showed about 2% value add relative to the cap-weighted value. It’s added two to two and a half percent live for 20 years. So you don’t fall into the trap of creating a strategy that looks great in a back test and falls apart instantly.

Barry Ritholtz: I’m so glad you said that, because when do you ever see a bad back test? All back tests are great, that you—

Rob Arnott: I see lots of bad back tests.

Barry Ritholtz: Oh, no. I mean the ones that get—

Rob Arnott: And I would never promote it.

Barry Ritholtz: The back tests that get shared are the ones that—of course they are. Totally. And inherent in every back test is the concept that the future is going to look like the past. And very often we see the future does not look like the past. So the back tests fail. Many back tests that look great fail to perform in real life.

Rob Arnott: That’s exactly right. Because the world changes. And if you’re doing a back test to create a better back test—

Barry Ritholtz: Right. That’s right.

Rob Arnott: That’s the epitome of data mining, and it’s endemic in our business.

Barry Ritholtz: Absolutely. So Rob, when this comes out as an investible product—be it an ETF or an SMA or a mutual fund—come back, tell us about it.

Rob Arnott: I’m not sure it will, because I’m trying to keep it secret. It’s so good.

Barry Ritholtz: Well, you and Jim Simons—like, kick out all the outside investors and just keep your own money so it works well. So to wrap up: if you’re concerned about cap weight, if you’re concerned about market concentration or valuation, take a look at the Research Affiliates Growth Index. It’s not market cap weighted, it’s not yet investible, but I know Research Affiliates and I’m pretty confident there will be an ETF for you to put money into at some point in the future. I’m Barry Ritholtz. You’ve been listening to Bloomberg’s At the Money.

~~~

Find our entire music playlist for At the Money on Spotify.

 

The post ATM: Focusing on Growth (Not Market Cap) appeared first on The Big Picture.

China Wants Iran War End, Pushes 'Immediate' Hormuz Reopening During Araghchi Visit Ahead Of Trump-Xi Summit

Iranian foreign minister Abbas Araghchi is currently in Beijing meeting with his Chinese counterpart, FM Wang Yi, and the timing of the visit sends a resounding message to Washington and the West. The highly anticipated Trump-Xi meeting is still scheduled for next week, expected for May 14-15, though there has been ample speculation the ongoing events of the unpredictable Iran war and Hormuz Strait crisis could derail the trip at the last minute.

Of course, Iran and the question of peace will be high on the agenda as Trump visits - and currently it seems the White House is desperate to set in place some kind of final offramp, given the Tuesday night 'pause' in Project Freedom operations in the Gulf.

Upon the occasion of Araghchi's visit, Foreign Minister Wang has taken the opportunity to again call for the immediate opening of the strait. And the Iranian top diplomat seconded this at a moment the US Navy has imposed an effective blockade of Iranian ports, which of course severely impacts Iranian oil going to China. "Currently, it is possible to resolve the issue of reopening the Strait of Hormuz as soon as possible," Xinhua quoted Araghchi as saying.

Source: Iranian Foreign Ministry

Wang during the meeting also called for a "comprehensive ceasefire," saying his country is deeply distressed by the war. Xinhua further quoted him as saying:

"The international community shares a common concern for restoring normal and safe passage through the Strait, and China hopes the relevant parties will respond as quickly as possible to the strong calls from the international community."

The two sides are clearly coordinating their messaging to some degree, given Wang also expressed that China "appreciates Iran’s pledge to not develop nuclear weapons."

Tehran has for years insisted its program is only for peaceful nuclear energy development and for domestic needs, but has amid Trump's Operation Epic Fury made clear it will never given up its right to enriched uranium. It has said this is as "sacred as the soil" and sees it as a matter of national sovereignty. This in the face of US demands that it transfer all nuclear material out of the country.

More out of Beijing on Wednesday:

“We believe that a comprehensive ceasefire brooks no delay, a resumption of hostilities is inadvisable, and persisting with negotiations is particularly important,” Wang told Araghchi at the start of their meeting, according to footage released by Hong Kong-based Phoenix TV.

...Earlier, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio urged China to press Iran to ease its blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, through which roughly one-fifth of the world’s oil and gas passes.

As for what China gains in this high-level diplomacy and engagement with Tehran at a moment it could face more US and Israeli bombs, Associated Press presents the following:

Some noted that the Iranian foreign minister visited at Beijing’s initiative. "It’s China exercising their leverage... to summon the Iranian foreign minister," said Hoo Tiang Boon, a professor of Chinese foreign policy at Nanyang Technological University.

"By holding the talks with the Iranians, you can't fault for them not putting in any effort," Hoo said.

As for some further specifics to come out of the Araghchi-Wang meeting, Iran "expressed appreciation for China’s four-point proposal" - according to a readout in semi-official Iranian Students' News Agency (ISNA).

Hilarious that the message Rubio is asking China to give Iran during Araghchi's Beijing visit is that Iran is "globally isolated" when the very fact he's invited to China (and that China is now fighting US sanctions on Iran's oil) proves they aren't.pic.twitter.com/UUGmfrL2d1

— Arnaud Bertrand (@RnaudBertrand) May 6, 2026

"Iran supports the formation of a new framework for the post-war period in the region" the readout adds. As for the 'four points' - these were issued by Beijing earlier in the conflict and are quite broad. These official points are featured below in their entirety, via Chinese state sources:

• Stay committed to the principle of peaceful coexistence. The Gulf states in the Middle East are close neighbours that cannot move away. It’s important to support the Gulf states in improving their ties, work to build a common, comprehensive, cooperative and sustainable security architecture of the Middle East and the Gulf region, and consolidate the foundation for peaceful coexistence.

• Stay committed to the principle of national sovereignty. Sovereignty serves as a foundation for all countries, especially developing countries, to survive and thrive, and it must not be violated.

• Stay committed to the principle of international rule of law. We should safeguard the authority of international rule of law, reject selective application, and prevent the world from returning to the law of the jungle. It is important to firmly uphold the international system with the United Nations at its core, the international order based on international law, and the basic norms governing international relations underpinned by the purposes and principles of the UN Charter.

• Stay committed to a balanced approach to development and security. Security is a prerequisite for development and development serves as a safeguard of security.

If negotiations between the US and Iran don't proceed, and if they stay at 'square one', this could weaken any big leverage President Trump hopes to have entering his meeting with Xi Jinping. This is perhaps why American officials are scrambling to cobble something together, to at least cite progress toward resolving the Hormuz situation. Still Trump has insisted he has "all the cards" when it comes to Iran.

Tyler Durden Wed, 05/06/2026 - 11:20