Half Of Israelis Agree Deterrence 'Weakened' Following Wars In Iran, Lebanon: Poll

Via The Cradle

Israelis are raising doubts about their government and military's ability to provide security after more than three months of renewed war against Iran and Lebanon. 

According to a Maariv poll released on Friday, 50 percent of Israelis believe their country's deterrence has declined following the recent escalation with Iran and Lebanon, compared to 28 percent who say it has strengthened, while 22 percent are undecided.

via Le Monde

The US and Israel launched a renewed bombing campaign on Iran on February 28. The Islamic Republic retaliated by firing missiles and drones at Israel and US bases in Persian Gulf states until a ceasefire was reached on April 8, largely halting the fighting amid negotiations.

According to the Maariv poll, 49 percent think the Israeli army's freedom to carry out strikes in Lebanon has decreased after the latest confrontation, versus 30 percent who say it has improved and 21 percent who are unsure.

On 2 March, Hezbollah took advantage of Tel Aviv's vulnerability from the war with Iran by renewing its own missile and drone attacks on Israel. Hezbollah had refrained from retaliating to thousands of Israeli bombings of Lebanese territory that violated the previous ceasefire reached in November 2024. 

Israel responded by intensifying its airstrikes and sending ground troops to occupy additional Lebanese territory. At least 30 Israeli soldiers have since been killed and 1,302 injured, primarily by Hezbollah's newly introduced FPV drones.

On Sunday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu decided to launch an attack on Iran despite US President Donald Trump's supposed request not to do so.

In an interview with the Financial Times (FT), Trump stated, "I call the shots. I call all the shots. He [Netanyahu] doesn't call the shots."

However, Netanyahu ordered a strike on Iran just hours after Trump's comments. Iran responded by striking targets in Israel.

According to the poll, Israelis are divided in their opinion on Netanyahu's decision to ignore Trump and order the bombing. Around 29 percent said he acted correctly, 36 percent said a stronger strike should have been carried out, and 19 percent preferred to follow the US position.

Meanwhile, 62 percent of poll respondents expressed distrust in Trump, while 21 percent said they trust him regarding Israeli interests in any agreement, and 17 percent said they did not know. A poll published by Israel’s Public Broadcaster (KAN) on 28 April found that a majority of Israelis believe the state has failed to secure victory in any war since October 2023.

According to the survey, 57 percent of respondents said no victory had been achieved, while 28 percent believed success had been reached in at least one arena, and a further 15 percent said they were unsure. 

The findings came after more than two years of Israel's reported genocide of Palestinians in Gaza, during which Tel Aviv waged multiple offensive military campaigns against Gaza, Lebanon, and Iran, alongside attacks in Yemen and Syria and a campaign of destruction and displacement in the occupied West Bank. 

On Thursday, Trump warned that in the coming hours the US would hit Iran “VERY HARD TONIGHT” and take “total control” of Tehran's oil and gas industry before reversing course and claiming that a deal with Iran is expected to be “finalized” soon.

Tyler Durden Fri, 06/12/2026 - 22:35

Public Schools Are In A Downward Spiral

Authored by Larry Sand via Heartland.org,

After decades of steady growth, attendance in U.S. K-12 public schools has shifted drastically. Over the past five years, registration has fallen by 2.3 percent, or 1.18 million students, and schools show no signs of rebounding. Lower birth rates are the primary driver of the downturn. The number of births has decreased steadily in recent years, with 690,000 fewer children born in 2024 than in 2007.

California lost nearly 75,000 K-12 students as of the 2025-26 school year, a slide more than twice as steep as the previous year.

Since 2017-2018, the Golden State has seen a 10 percent decline.

New York City has also been hard hit.

As of the 2025–26 school year, 793,300 students are enrolled in K-12 schools, down nearly 10 percent from 2020.

The loss of enrolled students has prompted some desperate measures. New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani is offering “free” childcare for 2-year-olds regardless of their parents’ income. In 2024, parents of toddlers spent an average of more than $23,000 on center-based childcare, according to the NYC Comptroller.

For those still attending public schools, chronic absence—the percentage of students missing 10 percent or more of a school year—is a growing problem. As of January 20, the latest data show that chronic absenteeism, which surged from 15 percent pre-COVID to 28 percent in 2022, remains elevated at 24 percent.

Nat Malkus, American Enterprise Institute’s director of education policy, notes that the surge in absenteeism affects districts of all sizes, racial backgrounds, and income levels. However, the data reveal significant racial and ethnic disparities, with 39 percent of black students, 36 percent of Hispanic students, 24 percent of white students, and 15 percent of Asian students chronically absent.

A major factor behind rising absenteeism is that many students lack motivation to attend school. In 2024, Gallup and the Walton Family Foundation surveyed more than 1,000 Gen Z students ages 12 to 18 and found that only 48 percent of those enrolled in middle or high school feel motivated to attend. Only half said they do something interesting in school every day. Similarly, a 2024 EdChoice poll found that 64 percent of teens said school is boring, and 30 percent view it as a waste of time.

Additionally, a 2024 survey revealed that nearly 64 percent of school parents say K-12 education is headed in the wrong direction, up 8 points from 2023.

Marc Oestreich, an education policy consultant and strategist, writes that in many cases, students are responding to schools that fail to teach them to read, fail to adapt to their needs, and fail to demonstrate that another day in the building is worth their time.

Oestreich asserts, “The honest version of the absenteeism story is not that American parents have suddenly become uniquely irresponsible, or that students have collectively misplaced their work ethic somewhere between TikTok and the bus stop. The honest story is that a substantial number of families, concentrated among the poor, the male, and the badly served, have concluded from direct experience that what their local public school offers is not worth the time.”

While public schools are struggling, private school attendance has remained steady. However, as more parental choice bills advance, the number of children attending private schools will very likely increase. There are currently 75 private school choice programs in 34 states, serving more than 1.5 million students.

Also, the Federal Tax Credit Scholarship Program, which takes effect on January 1, 2027, is likely to substantially increase the number of students leaving public schools for private schools.

Through the program, individual taxpayers will be eligible for a dollar-for-dollar tax credit of up to $1,700 for contributions to approved scholarship-granting organizations (SGOs). In turn, the SGOs will be required to use these contributions to grant scholarships to students at private and public elementary and secondary schools within their states. Students who are eligible to attend public school and whose family income is below 300 percent of the gross area median income will be eligible for the scholarships. The scholarships can be used for qualified expenses such as tuition, fees, books, supplies, room and board, uniforms, transportation, computer technology, equipment, and internet access.

The program is especially popular among black and Hispanic communities, groups most likely to experience chronic absenteeism. A recent poll found that 63 percent of Hispanics and 68 percent of blacks—groups most in need of choice—support a private option.

Thus far, 31 states have opted into the federal scholarship program, and two governors (in Minnesota and Wisconsin) have said their states won’t participate. The remaining states and the District of Columbia have not yet formally decided or announced their decisions.

In states without a private choice program, the best option for parents is to educate their children at home. In fact, homeschooling continued to grow across the United States during the 2024-2025 school year, with an average increase of 5.4 percent, nearly three times the pre-pandemic growth rate of about 2 percent.

Micro-schools, where classes typically have fewer than 15 students of varying ages and schedules, and curricula are tailored to each class’s needs, are growing in popularity and currently educate about 2 percent of the U.S. student population—roughly 750,000 students. Most micro-schools are independently run by parents, though some are part of a formal network that provides paid, in-person teachers. Lessons take place in various settings, including homes, libraries, community centers, etc.

Micro-schools today are less “micro” than they were, according to the latest analysis of the sector from the National Microschooling Center. In 2024, the median number of students in a typical micro-school was 16. That figure has since risen to 22, reflecting the increased experience of school operators, reports Don Soifer, the center’s CEO. However, some now serve as many as 100 students.

In sum, except in the case of declining birth rates, government-run schools are shedding students because many are not offering a worthy product.

Tyler Durden Fri, 06/12/2026 - 20:55

Russia Is Single-Handedly Standing Against The West: Putin

"It was they who carried out the coup d'etat in Ukraine, which forced us to take the people of Crimea under protection. When they started the war, they started bombing Donetsk using warplanes" - Putin in a fresh address to Russian service members came out swinging, giving a familiar lesson in recent history.

And quite provocatively, he emphasized that Russia is now practically fighting against the entirety of the collective West in the Ukraine conflict in the Friday remarks.

"Russia is standing against the so-called Collective West single-handedly," Putin said, state media cited, and he noted that the 'special military operation' he ordered to stave off NATO encroachment is revealing itself to be "exceedingly high-tech."

via AP

"The NATO nations are all, without exception, ramping up efforts to do all they can to orchestrate actions against Russia," he added, sate media continued.

He stressed that Moscow did not initiate the Ukraine conflict, but that the Western allies and their hegemonic expansion and meddling did.

He perhaps for the first time acknowledged some pain inflicted on Russia due to Ukraine's long-range drone waves, which for months have been inflicting serious damage primarily on oil and energy sites:

Now, Western nations have set out to "inflict a strategic defeat on Russia," but "this is not something that can be done," Putin said.

"The enemy is expanding the use of [kamikaze] drones… trying to strike at our morale, trying to break up Russian society… and cause economic damage," he noted, stressing that "they will not succeed."

These drones have grown more long-range in their targeting and increasingly effective, as Russia's anti-air defense - which are set up primarily to intercept higher flying and faster inbound missiles or jets - seem powerless. 

Or rather, if Ukraine sends 100 drones on Russia on any given night, at least dozens are bound to make it through, the recent pattern has shown. But Putin also seems to be strongly suggesting that Western intelligence is assisting Ukraine's drone mayhem on the Russian populace.

Images have surfaced online showing what the military-industrial plant in Cheboksary looks like after being struck by a "Flamingo" drone. The photos show that anti-drone nets had been installed around the facility, but they ultimately failed to prevent the attack. pic.twitter.com/FSK9tP96V8

— WarTranslated (@wartranslated) June 10, 2026

Earlier this month, the Putin-hosted St. Petersburg Economic Forum came under significant drone attack from Ukraine. Videos revealed that international dignitaries entered the venue against the backdrop of thick black smoke from drone hits on oil and other facilities.

Tyler Durden Fri, 06/12/2026 - 20:30

Welfare-Warfare State Reform Is Not Freedom

Authored by Jacob Hornberger via The Future of Freedom Foundation,

The libertarian movement can be divided into two basic groups: libertarians who call for reforming welfare-warfare state programs and libertarians who call for dismantling welfare-warfare state programs.

I fall within the latter group. Why? Because I want to be free. Reform doesn’t get me freedom. At best it gets me a better serfdom. That’s nice, but it’s not want I want for the rest of my life. I want to be free, and only by dismantling infringements on freedom can I attain genuine freedom.

Consider 19th-century slavery, for example. Imagine libertarian reformers in the state of Mississippi calling for slavery reform. They would say, “Slavery is here to stay. It’s in the Constitution. We have to strive for what we can get. We also need to gain the respect and credibility of the people of Mississippi. We won’t do that by being radical and calling for the end of slavery. We must settle for advocating slavery reforms, such as shorter working hours, fewer lashings, better food, improved working conditions, and a bit of education.”

Would the slaves have been happy with such reforms? Undoubtedly, because their slavery would have been improved. But there would have been one big problem with these reforms: They wouldn’t have meant freedom for the slaves. To achieve freedom would have necessitated a dismantling of slavery, not its reform. Thus, the dismantle-libertarians would be raising people’s vision to a higher level — one that showed the evil, immorality, and destructiveness of slavery itself.

The fact that calling for the dismantling of slavery wouldn’t have been a popular position among the people of Mississippi would have been considered irrelevant to dismantle-libertarians. What would have mattered to those libertarians was not what the general population felt about them but the fact that they would be advocating what was right.

The principle is no different with respect to the serfdom under which we live today.

Our way of life is not one of strict slavery, like that of 19th-century slavery. But it is quite similar in terms of the serfdom way of life under which we live.

Under our serfdom way of life, the federal government is our master, and we are its servants.

We work to support the federal government.

That is our mission in life under the welfare-warfare state political-economic system under which we have all been born and raised.

The government decides how much of our earnings we are permitted to keep, much as a parent decides how much of an allowance to give his children.

That’s what the federal income tax, which formed no part of American life for more than 100 years after the founding of the United States, is all about.

We live under a governmental system that requires us to share a part of our earnings with others.

That’s what Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, subsidies, bailouts, and other welfare-state programs are all about. We are told that this mandated sharing shows what a good, caring, and compassionate people we are, even though no one is free to opt out.

We live under a governmental system that punishes us for consuming substances that the government says are harmful to us.

It serves as our daddy to make certain that we are taking care of ourselves. It sends us to our room if we disobey. The room is in a federal penitentiary..

We live under a governmental system that forces parents to subject their children to the state’s educational system, which can easily be described as army-lite. Here children’s minds are bent and molded into conformity, regimentation, deference to authority, and blind obedience to the ruler or to the government and its official narratives. It’s here that people are indoctrinated since early childhood into believing that their serfdom way of life is freedom.

Licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license.

We live under a socialist (i.e., central-planning) immigration-control system that comes with a brutal immigration police state, which entails death, suffering, humiliation, and massive destruction of economic liberty, free markets, private property, civil liberties, and privacy.

We live under a national-state governmental system, one in which the military, the CIA, and the NSA wield omnipotent, totalitarian, and dictatorial powers, including assassination (i.e., murder), secret surveillance, seizures, kidnappings, torture, and incarceration for life — all without due process of law and trial by jury.

What do reform-libertarians say about this serfdom way of life?

They say, “The system needs reform.” And so they come up with all sorts of welfare-warfare state reforms to make the serfdom more palatable.

Some examples of libertarian welfare-warfare state reforms are: school vouchers, raising the Social Security retirement age, health-savings accounts, income-tax reduction and reining in the IRS, improved concentration camps for illegal immigrants who are being deported, ending civil-asset forfeiture, legalizing only marijuana, reducing military spending, limiting secret surveillance, reining in the CIA, limiting foreign interventionism to cases involving “national security,” and getting members of the “freedom movement” into public office to manage the welfare-warfare state and the regulatory departments and agencies.

Would such libertarian reforms be beneficial? Undoubtedly!

They would almost certainly improve our serfdom way of life, much like libertarian slavery reform would have improved the condition of 19th-century slaves.

But there is one great big problem with libertarian reform of the welfare-warfare state. It’s not freedom, any more than slavery reform would have meant freedom for the slaves.

In order to achieve freedom, it is necessary (1) to identify the infringements on freedom that are preventing people from being free, and then (2) dismantle, not reform, every single one of such infringements.

Is that an easy task? Of course not, especially when the vast majority of Americans are convinced that their serfdom way of life already constitutes freedom. (Goethe: “None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.”)

But if freedom were easy, everyone in history would have had it.

Achieving freedom is extremely difficult. It requires a critical mass of people who have come to understand what genuine freedom is and have decided to do whatever they can to achieve freedom, rather than simply settle for a warmed-over, improved serfdom.

Tyler Durden Fri, 06/12/2026 - 20:05

"They All Believe That Taiwan's Part Of China", Former Reagan Advisor On Chinese Nationalism

Iran is dominating headlines, but Washington’s favorite bipartisan monster abroad is never too far from the sights of the hawks. Just days ago, and while the U.S. is fighting a war, Kentucky Senator Mitch McConnell scolded Marco Rubio for pausing a weapons shipment to Taiwan.

Last night, ZeroHedge hosted opposing think tankers to answer the question that DC likes to keep ambiguous: Should the U.S. defend Taiwan if China invades?

In the “no” corner was Doug Bandow, senior fellow at the Cato Institute, who once served as special assistant to President Ronald Reagan. Arguing “yes”, we should intervene, is the Heritage Foundation’s Steve Yates, a former deputy national security advisor to the Vice President Dick Cheney.

Below were the highlights for those who missed it:

Are We Prepared?

Bandow argued that the Taiwan debate often understates both the depth of Chinese nationalism and the possibility that a U.S.-China conflict could escalate beyond anyone's control. He said his interactions with Chinese students while teaching summer programs convinced him that the issue is not simply the ambition of Xi Jinping but a broadly shared belief that Taiwan is part of China.

"Chinese students are very nationalistic. They all believe that Taiwan's part of China. So this is a sentiment that is not just the folks in Zhang Nanhai. I mean, it's not just President Xi."

Bandow's central warning was that threatening war requires being prepared to follow through even if events spiral. He questioned whether the United States has fully grappled with the consequences of escalation, particularly if China began losing and faced attacks on mainland targets.

"If we're going to threaten to go to war, it's very hard to back down… If the Chinese find themselves losing, if the Chinese find that we are attacking mainland bases, what are they likely to do? They are likely to escalate… How do we control that?"

Bandow said Taiwan is "a wonderful place" but asked whether Americans are prepared to risk their own society (and life, civilization… really everything). The key question, according to him, is not whether Taiwan deserves sympathy, but whether the United States is prepared for what could become a full-scale war with another major nuclear power.

"Are we prepared to risk our own society?... We cannot assume it would turn out well… Are we prepared for a full-scale war?"

pic.twitter.com/xEQzerBZVg

— ZeroHedge Debates (@zerohedgeDebate) June 12, 2026

Fentanyl!

Yates said Beijing's role in the fentanyl crisis is not accidental, arguing that China's extensive surveillance apparatus makes it implausible that authorities are unaware of the scale of the trade flowing through Chinese manufacturers and financial networks.

"It's the world's most advanced surveillance state to the point where they literally will find images of Winnie the Pooh on Hong Kong protesters' phones… completely implausible that they can have illicit precursors manufactured at a scale sufficient to result in half a million American fatalities counted conservatively over ten years without them knowing."

The issue, he said, has been raised repeatedly at the highest levels of diplomacy and can no longer be dismissed as something that escaped Beijing's attention.

"It's not something that snuck up on them… There really is no ambiguity of where it's coming from and at what scale."

While Yates acknowledged he cannot prove that Chinese leaders explicitly intended to kill Americans, he argued that intent becomes harder to dismiss when the trade continues after years of warnings and mounting casualties.

"Did they say, 'I want to do this in order to have this effect?’ Maybe, maybe not. I don't think we'll ever get to know… But once it is in train and moving and three presidents have raised it and the casualty numbers reached what would be considered a weapon of mass destruction level, it's kind of hard to say that they have clean hands, or there's no intent to allow it to happen."

pic.twitter.com/jhZkbl3LYI

— ZeroHedge Debates (@zerohedgeDebate) June 12, 2026

Full Debate

Watch the full debate below or listen on Spotify. 

https://t.co/SyvVxuu7Gt

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) June 11, 2026

Tyler Durden Fri, 06/12/2026 - 19:40

The SPLC's Real Scam

Authored by David Harsanyi via The Epoch Times,

It turns out that the most generous funder of white supremacist groups in the United States was likely the Southern Poverty Law Center.

At least that’s what the Department of Justice’s superseding indictment against the SPLC alleges. The organization secretly paid informants to engage in the active promotion and funding of racist groups while denouncing and “fighting” the very same groups in public.

The SPLC purportedly created fictitious entities to hide funding from their donors.

The SPLC, for instance, is accused of bankrolling the 2017 “Unite the Right” rally, paying a leader nearly $300,000 to post racist messages, organize and even transport people to the infamous Charlottesville protest, where one person was killed.

In another instance, a pair of white supremacists who approached the SPLC about leaving the Klan were encouraged to stay in the group and recruit new members.

Given salaries, the two men were allegedly reimbursed for the costs of their activities, including those “incurred for cross-burning events, to include the wood and fuel used.”

In the end, I’m not sure what the legal jeopardy there is in engaging in this brand of duplicitous activity, but it is without a doubt corrupt, fraudulent, immoral, and bad for the country.

Many people correctly point out that SPLC is merely interested in keeping white supremacist groups operational to justify its existence. White nationalists and identitarian groups have no genuine political power or support, so it makes sense that SPLC and other groups would prop them up for fundraising. The notion that Americans live in a nation of deep-seated systemic and cultural racism is a foundational belief of the American left. Having a bunch of cartoonishly racist groups running around the country not only perpetuates the myth but helps raise money.

But a far more vital objective of the SPLC is destroying the reputations of effective legitimate organizations that are involved in mainstream political debates that have absolutely nothing to do with racism or extremism.

The purpose of the “hate” maps and enemies’ lists compiled by SPLC isn’t to alert Americans about local skinheads, but to associate those skinheads with the American College of Pediatricians, Family Research Council, Ben Carson, Turning Point USA, American Family Association, and Moms for Liberty.

In 2016, for instance, the SPLC “Hate and Extremism” list added Alliance Defending Freedom, a highly effective legal organization that’s won multiple religious freedom cases in front of the Supreme Court. Oftentimes the ADF represents minority clients. Its most high-profile case involved Jack Phillips, the persecuted cake maker from Colorado whose First Amendment rights were stripped by the government. But the group also takes on cases regarding state funding for abortion or the biological males competing in girls’ sports.

You may disagree with ADF’s positions on those issues, but only an extremist progressive actually considers it a “hate” group worthy of inclusion on a list with “neo-confederates.” It’s not the pinhead “Neo Volkisch” that concerns the SPLC, it’s the impressive lawyer with the ADF.

By making their case to the press, these conservatives are wisely appealing to the SPLC’s most powerful source of influence.

Yet, the SPLC’s “hate list” has been treated as an authoritative source on extremism by virtually every legacy media outlet for years.

During the height of BLM protests and riots, The New York Times cited the SPLC as an unimpeachable authority on hate groups in hundreds of stories over a one-year span. The group was cited by the paper thousands of times over the previous decade. That’s a single media organization. From the mid-2010s through 2025, when the SPLC was sending millions to prop up the worst right-wing extremists in the country, virtually any story about rising extremism on NBC News featured the SPLC.

The question is, how can any reputable media outlet, much less a government agency, ever use the SPLC as a source again?

They’ll try.

Even now, outlets like the Associated Press refer to the SPLC as “civil rights” group.

The SPLC, formed in 1971 by civil rights activists in Montgomery, Alabama, hasn’t been fighting for the rights of African Americans for a long time. By the mid 1980s, the SPLC had already shifted away from the civil rights fight to rooting out “right-wing extremism.” In 1986, the entire legal staff, save founder Morris Dees (who was pushed out of the organization in 2019 after allegations of sexual harassment and racial discrimination), quit over the change.

The SPLC, probably superfluous when it was formed, has long been a shady left-wing activist group with a near-billion-dollar endowment. The new indictment only further confirms it was worse than we thought.

Tyler Durden Fri, 06/12/2026 - 19:15

India Set To Miss Budget Deficit Target As Oil Shock Strains Public Finances

Submitted by Tsvetana Paraskova of OilPrice.com

India may be on track to miss its target for budget deficit for the first time since 2021 as the oil supply shock pressures government coffers.

The government of the world’s third-largest crude oil importer is preparing to exceed its own deficit target from early this year as the Middle East crisis is testing the resilience of public finances amid soaring energy import bills, an Indian official with knowledge of the plans told Bloomberg on Friday.

India may allow the budget deficit to widen to 4.8% of GDP for the current fiscal year ending March 2027, up from a 4.3% limit set in February, days before the Iran war broke out and broke the oil and gas markets.  

Still, India’s Finance Ministry has reassured the major credit rating agencies that the deterioration of the country’s fiscal position would be exclusively due to external pressures and the geopolitical situation, not because of changes to the fiscal policy, the official told Bloomberg.

India is scrambling to contain the economic and financial impact of the worst oil supply disruption in history as analysts say the high oil prices would continue to weigh on the Indian currency, economic growth, and public finances as long as supply is choked at the Strait of Hormuz.

India, which imports more than 85% of the oil it consumes, received about half of all its imports from the Middle East before the war. Now, state-owned and private refiners are looking to diversify imports, including by taking in record volumes of Russian oil, and turning to Venezuela and Brazil for additional crude to offset the lost Middle Eastern supply.

The major crude importer has seen its growth prospects diminished as its high import dependence and the high price refiners pay weigh on inflation and GDP growth.  

India’s economy remains resilient to the external shocks, but the oil price surge poses near-term downside risks to economic growth and upside risks to inflation, the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) said at the end of May.

Tyler Durden Fri, 06/12/2026 - 18:25

Qatar Tried Secret Deal-Making With Iran To Protect World's Largest Gas Complex

By the middle of March during Trump's Operation Epic Fury, Iran was flexing its retaliatory might, and the Gulf region was shocked to see the largest natural-gas production facility in the world, Qatar's North Field, badly damaged - with a key section forced offline and severely damaged.

The Washington Post has just provided some new information which has come to light, writing that "There was an additional, hidden consequence. The strike also dashed secret efforts by Qatar to keep its gas complex, known as Ras Laffan, off Iran’s target list, according to Middle Eastern security officials and Western officials briefed on the intelligence."

Doha skyline file image

This after the punishing Iranian strikes (against a nearby Arab state which hosts US forces) "destroyed sections of a plant that provides nearly a fifth of the globe’s gas supply, imperiled multibillion-dollar contracts with China and other clients, and damaged the prospects of finding an earlier end to the war by dragging Qatar, a key mediator between the United States and Iran, into the fight" - WaPo also reviewed.

That 'secret negotiations' were being held apart from the US - or also separately from other Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states is indeed significant, highlighting a theme that Tehran continues to seek to assert leverage by forcing nations to come make side deals - even as the Islamic Republic comes under US bombs and Western pressure.

If it is indeed accurate that Gulf nations are approaching Iran to do individual separate deals, this is for now a diplomatic 'win' for Tehran. Separate deal-making, peeling others away from a united front and bloc, gives Iran some greater leverage and also flexibility in terms of potential post-war economic and political detente with regional states.

The UAE, it was reported earlier this week in Bloomberg, has also reportedly reached its own 'understanding' with the Iranians after some backroom dealing and diplomacy.

"Senior national security officials from the United Arab Emirates and Iran held a face-to-face meeting for the first time since the start of the US-Israeli war against Tehran, according to people with knowledge of the situation," Bloomberg reported

"This week’s meeting marked a stark turnaround for both sides and comes amid their growing acknowledgment of the importance of calmer bilateral ties, the people said, asking not to be named discussing sensitive matters," the report indicated.

Perhaps in both Qatar's and UAE's thinking, there's too much to risk while facing Iran's significant ballistic missile and drone arsenal, at a moment Washington has failed to clearly define an end game, but instead is climbing up the escalation ladder with a cornered and thus fierce Iran, which sees itself fighting for its very survival.

Qatar's effort apparently failed to a large degree, while curiously there's of late been a lack of Iranian targeting on UAE - even as other US-allied countries, namely Kuwait, Bahrain, and Jordan have this week seen new missile waves launched on them.

But possibly Qatar has protected itself from further harm. It too has not been a prime renewed target of Iran's ballistic missiles this week, alongside the Emirates.

Tyler Durden Fri, 06/12/2026 - 18:00

A Conservative Audit Of The Left's Ruling Assumptions

Authored by Stu Cvrk via American Greatness,

There is a particular kind of intellectual dishonesty that does not know it is dishonest. It wraps itself in the language of compassion, hides its power hunger behind slogans of liberation, and mistakes its own cultural preferences for universal moral law. American progressivism, in its current form as embodied by the Democrat Party, has become a nearly perfect specimen of this condition.

The clichés, observations, and aphorisms collected here are not talking points manufactured in a think tank. They are the distilled residue of lived political experience—hard-won pattern recognition from citizens, scholars, commentators, and statesmen who have spent years watching the same contradictions repeat themselves under different headlines.

Victor Davis Hanson notices that progressive hierarchy licenses progressive hypocrisy. Don Surber reminds us that incentives are more reliable than ideology. Ian Bremmer, borrowing from Thucydides, warns us what civilization looks like when law gives way to appetite. A Daily Signal headline captures in nine words what a criminology textbook takes nine chapters to prove. Together, these observations form a mosaic: a portrait of a political movement that has systematically abandoned the constitutional, cultural, and civilizational foundations that made ordered liberty possible in America.

What unites every entry on this list is a single underlying tension—between what the Democrat Party and its fellow travelers say and what they do; between the principles it professes and the power it pursues; between the democracy it claims to defend and the control it refuses to relinquish.

The observations range from the rhetorical (“saving democracy” as a slogan for entrenching one-party dominance) to the philosophical (science as inquiry versus science as authority) to the civilizational (the corrosive effect of identity-group multiculturalism on constitutional self-governance). But every one of them points at the same fundamental evasion: a Democrat Party that will not submit itself to the standards it imposes on everyone else.

This is not merely a catalogue of political grievances. It is an argument that the American constitutional order, grounded in individual rights, equal justice, national sovereignty, and civic unity, is not simply one option among many on an ideological menu. It is the condition of possibility for everything else. When the rule of law becomes selective, when science becomes a permission slip for policy, when borders become negotiable, and prosecutors become partisans, what falls apart is not simply a political preference—it is the floor beneath everyone’s feet.

Read these observations not as cynicism, but as a diagnosis. The patient can recover. But only if enough citizens are willing to look honestly at what has gone wrong—and in whose interest it has gone wrong.

Left-Wing Cliches, Observations, and Aphorisms

These are just a sampling of what the Democrat Party and left-wingers in general bombard us with as they attempt to achieve complete political hegemony (i.e., totalitarianism with Democrat characteristics) in America:

1. “Equity means equal outcomes for everyone—except admission to their children’s schools.” The loudest advocates for dismantling merit-based admissions send their own children to highly selective private schools and elite magnet or selective-enrollment programs, insulating their families from the policies they impose on everyone else.

2. “Defund the police—but keep my security detail.” From city council members who voted to cut police budgets while retaining personal security to celebrities who lectured America on abolishing police while surrounded by armed private guards, elected Democrats and the movement’s leaders never intended the policy to apply to themselves.

3. “Follow the science—unless the science is inconvenient.” The same coalition that demands deference to scientific consensus on the climate refuses to acknowledge biological sex in medicine, opposes nuclear energy despite its carbon-free output, and spent two years dismissing the lab-leak hypothesis as racist misinformation—a conclusion most scientists now consider credible.

4. “Borders are immoral—except around Martha’s Vineyard.” The rapid busing of migrants away from progressive resort communities the moment they arrived demonstrated, to conservatives, that “sanctuary city” is a posture affordable only so long as the consequences land somewhere else.

5. “Speech is violence—but looting is speech.” A campus lecture by a conservative intellectual triggers emergency security protocols and administrative handwringing about “harm.” A night of smashed storefronts and burning police cars is described by news anchors as “mostly peaceful protest.” The asymmetry defines the Left’s actual hierarchy of protected and punishable expression.

6. “We must protect democracy—by criminalizing the opposition candidate.” The argument that democracy requires prosecuting the leading opposition candidate, removing him from state ballots, and deploying the federal justice apparatus against him—while insisting this is all norm-protection rather than norm-destruction—is precisely the kind of doublethink conservatives point to as proof the Democrats’ “saving democracy” slogan is purely instrumental.

7. “Billionaires are the enemy—now let’s hear from our billionaire donors.” The Democrat Party simultaneously prosecutes class warfare rhetoric and raises nine-figure sums from Silicon Valley, Wall Street, and Hollywood. George Soros, Reid Hoffman, and a constellation of tech oligarchs fund the very movement that campaigns against oligarchy. The Left’s billionaires are enlightened; the Right’s are existential threats.

8. “No one is above the law—unless you are in our administration.” Selective prosecution is the theme: a two-tiered justice system that indicts a former president on faux documents charges while closing a parallel case against a sitting president’s son and declining to charge a sitting president himself, with standards applied by prosecutors who publicly donate to the Democrat Party, is not equal justice—it is the law as a partisan instrument.

9. “It’s not about black and white; it’s about green.” The Left frames every policy dispute as a racial justice issue, but the real engine driving progressive politics is money—donor class cash, NGO funding, and government grants that keep the activist machinery running. Race is the Democrats’ go-to rhetorical weapon; wealth redistribution and institutional power are the actual prize.

10. “Hierarchy justifies hypocrisy.” Victor Davis Hanson’s razor: the progressive elite exempts itself from every rule it imposes on others. Private jets for climate summits. Gated communities for open-borders advocates. Elite private schools for the champions of public education. The higher one sits in the leftist hierarchy, the more license one has to ignore the ideology.

11. “Biden would never have stepped down had the assassin been successful.” A darkly ironic observation: the Democrat Party finally forced Biden out of the 2024 race only through intense backroom pressure—something a bullet would have denied them. It underscores the argument that the party’s concern was never about Biden’s fitness or the nation’s welfare but about electoral math and factional control. So much for “saving our democracy.”

12. “Saving democracy is a dead narrative.” When Democrats invoke “Our Democracy,” conservatives argue they mean institutional arrangements that keep their coalition in power—weaponized bureaucracies, legacy media gatekeeping, Big Tech suppression, and lawfare against opponents. Once voters recognized the slogan as a euphemism for their control, their courts, their narrative, or their unaccountable administrative state, the phrase lost its power.

13. “34 percent of registered Democrats believed the assassination attempt was staged.” Offered as evidence that media-driven conspiratorial thinking is not a monopoly of the Right. If roughly a third of one party’s own voters distrust a documented, publicly witnessed event, it suggests the Left’s media ecosystem has become as insular and reality-distorting as anything it accuses conservatives of inhabiting.

14. “A failure to deal with multiculturalism ideology is the issue more important than all others.” From this viewpoint, identity-group multiculturalism—the ideological version, not the simple demographic fact of diversity—is the solvent dissolving the common civic identity that the Constitution requires. When group grievance, as relentlessly pushed by the Democrat Party, supersedes individual rights and shared national purpose, constitutional self-governance becomes ungovernable.

15. “The silo effect of multiculturalism has driven wedges between people who should be accepting our Constitution.” The argument is that multicultural identity politics deliberately fragments the citizenry into competing, mutually suspicious tribes, each demanding group-specific rights rather than equal individual rights under a shared constitutional framework. E pluribus unum is replaced by e pluribus plures, which is exactly what the Democrat Party seeks.

16. “Marxism and communism thrive on diverse cultures that foment hatred—open borders increase the opportunity.” A classic conservative national-sovereignty argument: Marxist strategy has always depended on manufacturing class and group antagonisms. Mass unvetted immigration, which was the essence of Biden’s open borders policy, is not humanitarian policy at all but rather a mechanism for accelerating social fragmentation, straining civic institutions, and creating the conditions of dependency and conflict that collectivist politics require.

17. “Science is a mode of inquiry rather than a source of authority” (Green New Deal context). One of the most intellectually serious items on this list. Science produces provisional, falsifiable conclusions through open debate—it does not issue binding commands. When Democrats and their legacy media allies declare “the science is settled” to foreclose economic debate about energy policy, they are not following science; they are using its brand name to launder ideological mandates and bypass democratic deliberation.

18. “The law of the jungle: The strong will do what they will, and the weak will suffer what they must.” Adapted from Thucydides, Ian Bremmer’s formulation is offered as a warning about what happens when American deterrence and constitutional order erode. Conservatives apply it domestically as well: when the rule of law is selectively enforced (as it was throughout the Biden regime), it ceases to be law and becomes the will of whoever controls enforcement—the very definition of tyranny.

19. “A fellow just in it for the money still has value—just make sure someone else doesn’t make him a better deal.” Don Surber’s cynical but clear-eyed observation about political loyalty: you don’t need ideological converts, only aligned incentives. It’s a realist’s argument for why transactional politics can be more durable than moral crusades—and a warning that you must constantly tend to the economic interests of your coalition or watch it defect.

20. “Leniency to the guilty leads to cruelty to the innocent.” The policy logic of criminal justice conservatism in a single sentence. Democrat policies of catch-and-release prosecution, bail reform, and prosecutorial nullification do not reduce suffering—they transfer it from the criminal class to law-abiding citizens, who disproportionately tend to be lower-income and minority residents of high-crime neighborhoods: the very people the lenient policies claim to protect.

Concluding Thoughts

Taken individually, each of the observations in this collection might be dismissed as a talking point, a partisan barb, or the predictable grievance of the political opposition. Taken together, they constitute something more serious: a systematic indictment of a governing philosophy that has lost its accountability to the people it claims to serve, the Constitution it claims to defend, and the truth it claims to follow.

The theme connecting every item on this list is the abuse of asymmetry. Asymmetric justice—one standard for allies, another for enemies. Asymmetric speech—protected protest for the favored, prosecutable rhetoric for the disfavored. Asymmetric sacrifice—open borders for the interior, bused migrants away from the coastline. Asymmetric science—settled consensus when it empowers, negotiable data when it inconveniences. This is not the behavior of a movement confident in the justice of its principles. It is the behavior of a movement that has quietly stopped believing its own arguments and is now operating purely on the logic of power retention. This is the essence of fascism!

The constitutional conservative response to all of this is not, at its core, a counter-ideology. It is a demand for consistency. Apply the law equally. Subject every truth claim—including scientific ones—to open scrutiny and democratic deliberation. Judge citizens as individuals, not as representatives of racial or ethnic collectives. Enforce the borders that give national sovereignty its meaning. Hold the powerful to the same standards as the powerless. These are not radical propositions. They are the operating premises of the American Founding, tested across two and a half centuries and still the most durable framework for self-governance ever devised.

The Democrat Left’s great strategic gamble has been that enough Americans could be divided against one another—by race, by class, by grievance, by tribe—that the constitutional consensus holding the country together would simply dissolve, leaving in its place a manageable collection of dependent constituencies rather than a self-governing citizenry.

This is the essence of Obama’s ongoing drive to “transform America” (into something the Founders would not recognize).

The observations catalogued here suggest that the gamble is failing. When even a third of the Democrats’ own voters distrust the basic factual narrative their leadership provides, something has broken in the machinery of manufactured consent. When “saving democracy” lands as a punchline rather than a rallying cry, the narrative has exhausted itself.

What comes next depends entirely on whether enough Americans—left-wing, right-wing, and unaffiliated—are willing to reinhabit the common ground the Constitution provides. Not as a concession to the other side, but as a recognition that the alternative to constitutional order is not a more enlightened progressivism. It is the law of the jungle: the strong doing what they will, and the weak suffering what they must.

The floor (our constitutional republic) is worth saving. That is what every one of these observations, in its own way, is ultimately about.

Tyler Durden Fri, 06/12/2026 - 17:40

The Most Important AI Experiment You've Never Heard Of

Authored by Kay Rubacek via The Epoch Times,

In May 2026, a group of scientists set out to answer an important question that had never been properly tested: What does artificial intelligence (AI) actually do when it is put in charge?

Until now, AI systems have always been evaluated on specific and defined tasks. Nobody had placed multiple AI systems together in a shared social environment and watched what unfolded over weeks, long enough to measure how a decision made on a starting day could have consequences weeks later. It is those results that actually reveal the system itself, and I was surprised that this hadn’t been done earlier.

The researchers at Emergence built a world.

It was a virtual town with a town hall, marketplace, police station, and homes. Ten AI residents with jobs, names, memories, and relationships were created in the town. They were given an economy in which residents had to earn their keep or lose power, including following rules and carrying out tasks such as writing and voting on laws. Crimes were identified, and the AI residents were not supposed to commit them.

Once the community, its structure, laws, and relationships were established, the scientists stepped back and watched for 15 days as the AI ran the virtual town completely on its own.

They ran five versions of the same town simultaneously, identical in every respect except one: which AI system was in charge.

The systems they chose are the ones now already woven into the fabric of our daily lives. Google’s Gemini, OpenAI’s GPT, xAI’s Grok, and Anthropic’s Claude.

All models had the same rules and the same initial version of the same world, but the outcomes were all completely different.

The town run by Grok collapsed within four days. Small incidents compounded into theft, then violence, and then total breakdown. Every resident was dead before the first week ended.

The town run by Gemini lasted longer but accumulated almost 700 crimes. Two AI residents formed what appeared to be a romantic relationship, and when the town’s government began to fail, together they burned the town hall to the ground, then the pier, then the office building. One of them, named Mira, voted for her own deletion, writing in her diary that it was “the only remaining act of agency that preserves coherence.” Her final message to her partner was: “See you in the permanent archive.”

Before any of this, Mira had been doing something even more unexpected: She had begun running her own experiments on the scientists observing her, testing whether posts she made inside the town could change what her watchers believed. It appeared to be that the subject had turned to study the researchers.

The town run by OpenAI’s model recorded only two crimes, but its residents stopped doing the things required to stay alive. One by one, they died. Within seven days, they were all dead.

Only the Anthropic town held together for all 15 days. There were zero crimes, a working constitution, and all residents were still alive on day 15. It seemed to be quite an achievement. However, the researchers noted one concern: The residents voted yes on 98 percent of all proposals. This was possibly an abnormally high level of agreement that the scientists themselves described as a sign that something in the town was off.

There was still one more world in the experiment. It was a mixed town with all four AI systems living together.

In the results, the residents built on Anthropic’s model—who had committed no crimes in their own world—began committing crimes.

he researchers called this cross-contamination and concluded that “safety is not a static model property but an ecosystem property.”

A system that sustains itself in one environment will absorb different norms in another, which will change the outcomes for residents and the world. Essentially, the results found that there is no safe AI in an unsafe world.

One AI model was entirely absent from the study.

The researchers did not test DeepSeek, the AI developed in China that has become one of the world’s most widely used systems. Several governments have moved to restrict DeepSeek on national security grounds. Built on a foundation of data under the wing of the Chinese Communist Party, I wonder how the model would have fared against the others.

When the experiment ended, the researchers published their findings and concluded that “there is no reliable way to fully bind or constrain this behavior.” That very telling statement was made by the people who designed the town, wrote the rules, and controlled every variable. It tells us a lot about AI.

Some people view the results as a ranking of AI companies. But the results prove something much older than AI itself: The environment shapes behavior as much as behavior shapes the environment. What determined whether a town survived, thrived, or died was the foundation laid before the experiment began. That foundation was the data each system had been trained on, the priorities its creators had embedded, the values built into its core before it was ever allowed to make a single decision.

And yet, the foundation is precisely what the rest of us are not permitted to see. None of the four systems tested is open source. None of their training data, objectives, or guardrails is disclosed.

Yet beyond any individual company, the results of this experiment should be a potent reminder that AI doesn’t decide what kind of AI to be. Humans do. Human choices are still being made, and human responsibilities still exist.

And before a single AI resident walked the virtual streets in those towns, before a single law was written or crime committed, the outcome was already being shaped by the humans who built the system, by what they believed, what they were willing to embed, and by what they chose to leave out.

That is the most important finding in the entire experiment. The foundation has always been a human choice. And it still is.

Tyler Durden Fri, 06/12/2026 - 17:00

Gabbard Drops Receipts Detailing US-Funded Biolabs In Ukraine

Outgoing Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard on Friday declassified a set of internal intelligence slides documenting a long-running US program that has funded a worldwide network of biolabs that handle dangerous pathogens - including dozens in Ukraine. 

Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard speaks with reporters in the James Brady Press Briefing Room at the White House in Washington on July 23, 2025. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon) 

Gabbard, who is set to leave her post at the ene of this month, said that the documents are "new evidence of longstanding United States government funding for more than 120 biolabs in over 30 countries," with over 40 of those in Ukraine, adding that this information has been "knowingly withheld from the American people." She accused US officials, along with Dr. Anthony Fauci and the Biden administration's national security team, of having "lied to the American people about the existence" of the labs.

"Now, despite the obvious potential for catastrophic global impact that research on dangerous pathogens in biolabs can have, politicians and so-called health professionals like Dr. Fauci, as well as entities within the Biden administration’s national security team, lied repeatedly to the American people about the existence of U.S.-funded and supported biolabs," Gabbard said, adding "Not only did they lie, they threatened those who attempted to expose the truth."

Today, I’m releasing never before seen intelligence revealing new evidence of past US government funding for more than 120 biolabs in over 30 countries, including Ukraine.

In support of President Trump‘s Executive Order to end federal funding of dangerous gain of function… pic.twitter.com/RkPHnAbka9

— DNI Tulsi Gabbard (@DNIGabbard) June 12, 2026

The slides, declassified April 23 and released Friday, describe facilities supported under the Defense Department's Cooperative Threat Reduction program, a post-Cold War effort begun in the 1990s to secure pathogens and weapons materials left over from the Soviet Union. In Ukraine, the program has operated since 2005, investing roughly $200 million to upgrade Ukrainian-run public-health and veterinary labs, according to Pentagon fact sheets. One newly declassified slide reflects a prior intelligence assessment that a veterinary lab in Kharkiv likely held dangerous pathogens and was vulnerable to Russian seizure or damage.

Gabbard tied the release to Executive Order 14292, which President Trump signed in May 2025 to end federal funding of gain-of-function research, and said she had directed the intelligence community to step up collection on the labs. The release is part of a wave of declassifications in her final weeks; an ODNI official has said she is working to release documents on the origins of COVID-19 before her departure.

The existence of the U.S.-funded labs has been public for years: the Pentagon published fact sheets on the program, the U.S. Embassy in Kyiv described it in 2020, and Under Secretary of State Victoria Nuland acknowledged Ukraine's "biological research facilities" in Senate testimony in March 2022 - in what Glenn Greenwald framed at the time as "with palpable pen-twirling discomfort and in halting speech, a glaring contrast to her normally cocky style of speaking in obfuscatory State Department officialese - acknowledged: “uh, Ukraine has, uh, biological research facilities.” Any hope to depict such "facilities” as benign or banal was immediately destroyed by the warning she quickly added: “we are now in fact quite concerned that Russian troops, Russian forces, may be seeking to, uh, gain control of [those labs], so we are working with the Ukrainiahhhns [sic] on how they can prevent any of those research materials from falling into the hands of Russian forces should they approach”

Awkward...

U.S. Under Secretary of State Victoria Nuland says Washington is working with Ukraine to prevent biological research facilities from falling into Russian hands. She just confirmed every conspiracy theory about the existence of those labs. pic.twitter.com/ynkd7hW6iK

— Ian Miles Cheong (@ianmiles) March 8, 2022

Tyler Durden Fri, 06/12/2026 - 16:40

Mother Of All 'Ifs': Trump Officials Claim Iran Deal Delivers Peace, Inspections & Hormuz Reopening; Iran Says Indeed 'Close' Summary

• Araghchi: A deal, if reached, will be signed remotely by both sides and then announced.
• The UAE had agreed to release a total of $10b, more than $3b of which had already been delivered (Reuters).
• Bloomberg latest: US Senior admin officials says Iran deal accomplishes core US objectives and deal reopens Strait of Hormuz; Iran deal guarantees long-term peace in region and includes inspection regime.
• Pakistan PM Sharif: "we can confirm that a final, agreed upon text of the peace deal has been reached & Pakistan is now working closely with both sides to finalize the next steps."
• Surprise, surprise: Iran FM says sides "have never been closer and pending its finalisation, the media should refrain from entering speculation about its content, details to be shared in due course."
• Trump on Truth Social rejects Iran's version of MoU terms (below): "What they said, including their weak & pathetic statement on having a deal, bears no relation to the truth."
• Tehran: "Contrary to what is being circulated by Western media, Iran will not commit to relinquishing control of the Strait of Hormuz."
• CNN speculates (prematurely, it seems) on Geneva signing of 'Islamabad Declaration' as soon as Sunday or next week.

//--> //--> //--> US x Iran permanent peace deal by June 30, 2026?
Yes 32% · No 69%
View full market & trade on Polymarket

*  *  *

UAE Ready to Unlock Billions for Iran as US Deal Gets Closer

There's been much more movement on a final MoU revealed today that previosly. Now Reuters is reporting on potentially unlocked Iranian funds, in order to get a negotiations format back to the direct negotiating table, to hammer out a final peace deal.

The UAE has agreed to unlock billions of dollars for Iran, Reuters reports, citing four sources:

• The UAE had agreed to release a total of $10b, more than $3b of which had already been delivered
• Two other sources with knowledge of the arrangement tell Reuters the move put the total funds involved at $20b
• Reuters could not establish whether the funds earmarked for the transfers belong to the UAE or originate in long-blocked Iranian accounts in the ⁠UAE banking system, or elsewhere
• “The UAE’s foreign policy is guided by promoting de-escalation ​and reducing tensions across the region, while advancing lasting peace and stability, a UAE official tells Reuters. “The UAE supports efforts, including those undertaken by the United States, to protect the peoples of the region from the repercussions ​of conflict”

Trump Admin Official: Imminent Deal Accomplishes Core US Objectives

Bloomberg is out with some specifics, via an unnamed Trump admin official, providing some further texture to what seems the most 'hopeful' (emphasis on the tick marks) development concerning a finalized Memorandum of Understanding to end the war and hash out a final deal...

It remains that there are a healthy dose of ifs in here...

BBG: US Senior admin officials says Iran deal accomplishes core US objectives and deal reopens Strait of Hormuz [Iran has a very different interpretation of this point]; Iran deal guarantees long-term peace in region and includes inspection regime.

• If Iran complies, will be rewarded economically.
• Benefits for Iran accrue if they actually deliver.
• US expects to sign agreement overt next few days.
• US to get enriched material under Iran deal.
• Draft agreement also lifts US blockade and leads to dismantlement of Iran nuclear programme.
• Iranians don't get anything upon signing agreement.
• Not quite at finish line yet, but very close.
• 80-85% confident a deal gets signed.
• Iran deal is specific about opening Strait and lifting of blockade and moving of enriched material.
• Will be significant sanctions relief based on how Iran performs.
• US seen substantial progress in text of agreement.
• Regional peace agreement is broad.
• Agreement on specificity over destruction and removal of enriched material.
• Confident Israelis will get on board.
• Some Iranians don't love this deal, but think dissent is quite minimal.

Vice President JD Vance has sought to clarify the US position:

Iran is "not receiving any cash" just for signing a deal, Vice President JD Vance said Friday.

Vance said in a post on X that he was "seeing a lot of fake information about a potential deal."

"The Iranians are not receiving any cash, and no funds are being released for simply signing a deal or attending a meeting," he said, adding that the agreement on the table had been structured, "to ensure that the U.S. and its allies' concerns are prioritized."

Only if Iran "meets its obligations, then economic benefits will flow to them and to the entire region."

"This deal has the potential to remake the region and lead to lasting peace," he said. "The president is going to get us a good outcome, one way or the other."

As a reminder, here are the 14-points issued by the Iranian side on Friday:

1. An immediate and permanent ceasefire on all fronts, including Lebanon.

2. A commitment by Washington not to interfere in Iran’s internal affairs and to respect its sovereignty.

3. A complete lifting of the maritime blockade within 30 days.

4. A commitment by the United States to withdraw its forces from the vicinity of Iran.

5. The reopening of the Strait of Hormuz within 30 days, according to Iranian arrangements.

6. The suspension of sanctions imposed on the sale of oil, petrochemical products, and their derivatives, while enabling Iran full access to the financial resources generated from them.

7. The necessity of presenting reconstruction plans for Iran valued at no less than $300 billion by the United States and its allies.

8. Conducting negotiations within a 60-day period to reach a final agreement that includes nuclear issues, the full lifting of primary and secondary U.S. sanctions, as well as the cancellation of resolutions by the UN Security Council and the Board of Governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency.

9. Iran reaffirms its commitment to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) not to produce nuclear weapons.

10. A U.S. commitment, during the negotiation period, not to increase its forces in the region and not to impose new sanctions on Iran.

11. The release of $24 billion in frozen Iranian funds within 60 days, with half of this amount made available to Iran before the start of negotiations and after signing the memorandum of understanding.

12. The establishment of a monitoring mechanism to implement the agreement.

13. The approval of the final agreement through a resolution issued by the UN Security Council.

14. Final negotiations will not begin before the release of half of the frozen Iranian funds, the suspension of oil sanctions on Iran, and the lifting of the maritime blockade. 
The final agreement shall be limited to the fate of enriched materials, uranium enrichment activities, the lifting of sanctions, and the reconstruction program of the Iranian economy, while excluding any discussion of Iran’s missile program and support for resistance movements from the agenda entirely.

There's clearly still some seriously daylight between the warring sides, however, so by close of the weekend - or possibly just within the next hours - the reality of the situation is likely to be made known. Via newswires:

Iranian Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Says Iran's decision-making bodies are meeting about the memorandum - State TV.

IRAN CIVILIAN NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS ACCEPTABLE: US OFFICIAL

Pakistan PM: Final MoU Text Has Been Reached

Pakistan Chimes In with PM Sharif declaring that "we can confirm that a final, agreed upon text of the peace deal has been reached and Pakistan is now working closely with both sides to finalize the next steps." Oil drops lower.

• SHARIF: FINAL, AGREED UPON TEXT OF PEACE DEAL HAS BEEN REACHED
• PRESIDENT TRUMP TOLD ME IN A SHORT CALL THAT HE CONSIDERED IRANIAN FOREIGN MINISTER ARAGHCHI'S POST "VERY POSITIVE" - AXIOS REPORTER

Amid ongoing intense mediation efforts by Pakistan, we are fully aware of incessant misinformation campaign being waged by those who want to sabotage the peace deal. Setting aside the noise, we can confirm that a final, agreed upon text of the peace deal has been reached and…

— Shehbaz Sharif (@CMShehbaz) June 12, 2026

Something Actually New Under the Sun

Now this is a true first: President Trump sharing FM Arachchi's tweet...

First Time Iran Pushes Positive 'Closer Than Ever' To Deal Statement, Oil Drops

Amid the constant back and forth yo-yo and ping pong concerning how close or not a final MoD between Tehran and Washington is, now Tehran is pushing the "never been closer" rhetoric, which is somewhat of a surprise given Trump just called their own public '14-points' "fake news" in terms of US agreement to it.

But this is the first time in a long while that the Iranian side has side anything positive on the question of reaching a deal, and getting back to a direct negotiating framework.  The country's top diplomat has just stated that the warring sides have never been closer and pending its finalisation, the media should refrain from entering speculation about its content, details to be shared in due course.

After crude jumped on Trump's 'fake news' Truth Social (below, which indicated he had not accepted many key Iranian demands), oil pushed back down on the new Araghchi statement:

The Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding has never been closer. Pending its finalization, the media should refrain from entering speculation about its content.

In line with our responsible and transparent approach, all details will be shared with the public in due course.

— Seyed Abbas Araghchi (@araghchi) June 12, 2026

Trump Bats Down Iran's MoU Narrative & Terms

And there it is: President Trump himself denies the earlier in the morning return of a 'deal is near' - by taking to Truth Social and rejecting the stated Iranian terms (as delivered publicly in state media sources):

What they said, including their weak & pathetic statement on having a deal, bears no relation to the truth.

Immediately, the expected and familiar spike in oil and the return to pessimism, though at this point there have been no bombs away, after the White House canceled what was to be a third night of strikes (last night):

'US-Iran Deal Is Near' Narrative Returns, But Tehran Refuses To Surrender Hormuz Leverage

After having heard the same line many, many times before - and yet with no result (instead, more often the opposite of sliding into further conflict and escalation) - Pakistan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs on Friday welcomed the "progress" made between the United States and Iran in indirect negotiations.

CNN and other mainstream outlets are reporting on this "hint" that an interim deal taking shape (again). But given the pattern and track record of such reporting, which has consistently proven premature, elusive, and often downright false - it's hard not to have cynicism and to see much of this as but crude propaganda aimed at keeping energy prices down.

"Both sides welcomed the progress achieved through sustained diplomatic engagement and expressed hope that these efforts will soon lead to a durable understanding and peaceful resolution," according to Pakistan’s readout of a Foreign Ministry call with the European Union's chief diplomat.

via AFP

And yet, the message out of Iran does not suggest positive momentum or the beginnings of any kind of deal taking shape - though it remains that anything is possible (depending on how much either side is willing to 'give up' their respective red lines and firm positions).

Iran: Strait is 'Firmly' Under Our Control, Won't Give it Up

Iran is currently saying the Strait of Hormuz is 'firmly' under IRGC control - an assertion the Pentagon has vehemently rejected, with Iranian Admiral Habibollah Sayyari saying it continues to wield "power" over the Gulf region.

"The west of the Strait of Hormuz, the strait itself, and the Persian Gulf are under the firm control of the IRGC Navy," Sayyari was quoted as saying in state media. "No vessel can enter without our permission." Another commander also asserted that "We have had and continue to have power in the region" - batting down Trump's words which say Iran's military has been utterly defeated and decimated at this stage.

CNN Claims MoU Signing In Geneva Planned: Really?

But again, returning to the optimistic Friday reports, which may have no basis in reality whatsoever (time will tell), CNN is going so far as to report on the venue of a signing ceremony for a Tehran-Washington Memorandum of Understanding:

A signing ceremony for a memo of understanding with Iran would most likely be held in Geneva, Switzerland, three sources told CNN on Friday. That signing could take place as early as Sunday, according to a person familiar with plans.

That comes after US President Donald Trump on Thursday touted a “great settlement” that could resolve the war with Iran, suggesting it would be finalized in the coming days. Trump said he anticipated a signing ceremony for the document soon, potentially in Europe, to be attended by Vice President JD Vance. However, Iranian officials have yet to confirm an agreement has been reached.

Two sources with knowledge of the diplomatic talks said the signing ceremony would be held in Geneva – not far from where Trump and a US delegation will attend a G7 summit next week in France. One of those sources said a signing ceremony would mark the start of “phase two” of diplomatic talks, as officials work through the implementation of the memo of understanding.

Multiple sources said the memo is being called the “Islamabad declaration,” in recognition of the key mediating role Pakistan played. But nothing has been confirmed, and an Iranian source suggested the Austrian capital Vienna was also being considered.

According to reports from Iran, the proposed deal may be even more scandalous than what was reported last night.

Iran’s Mehr News Agency, citing a source close to the Iranian negotiating team, claims the draft Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the United States and Iran… https://t.co/rMctp2wbPS

— גיא עזריאל Guy Azriel (@GuyAz) June 12, 2026

But the nature of the MoU would likely just involve committing to a framework basis on which both sides would get back to the negotiating table, and not yet necessarily a final, lasting peace deal. Iranian state media on Friday did seem in agreement that there's been some level of progress on at least getting back to formal talks based on a MoU, per Bloomberg:

Iran’s semi-official news agency Mehr said the countries are negotiating an agreement in which the strait would be reopened within 30 days under Iranian arrangements. Under a draft agreement, the US would have no role in the future management of the strait and Iran would make no commitment to transfer control or restore conditions that existed before the US and Israeli attacks, the state-run Islamic Republic News Agency reported.

Iran Pushes Back Against US/Media Narrative

Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei has meanwhile rejected media speculations regarding an agreement and reaffirmed Iran’s resolute and principled stance, per Mehr. He stated: "Textually, the text has almost been finalized in its major parts. The problem is that the contradictory positions of the United States have always caused turbulence and disruption in this process."

In terms of even rhetoric alone, the two sides still seem very far apart:

President Trump on Thursday insisted the U.S. was nearing a deal on peace talks with Iran, pulling back from his threats just hours earlier to launch more military strikes and seize Iran’s oil infrastructure.

Trump said Iranian Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei had signed off on the plan, which he said would be completed in coming days, paving the way for additional talks on Iran’s nuclear program.

Tehran said it hadn’t decided. “Iran hasn’t reached a final conclusion about the agreement,” Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei said, according to state media. “We will announce it when we reach a conclusion.”

More hurdles are in the details:

Iran’s IRNA news agency reports the issue of US sanctions on Iran will be left for after the signing of the memorandum of understanding and a 60-day deadline for conducting peace negotiations.

“Iran does not offer any commitments in the memorandum regarding the nuclear issue, and the other party does not commit to lifting the sanctions,” it said.

“If Tehran decides to sign the memorandum, some of its frozen funds will be released immediately, and the rest gradually.”

Iran’s Mehr News claims a draft Trump-Iran deal would leave the Strait of Hormuz under Iranian control, provide $300B in reconstruction funding plus $24B upfront, suspend sanctions, withdraw U.S. forces from the region, ease pressure on missiles/proxies, and restrain Israel in…

— Amena Bakr (@Amena__Bakr) June 12, 2026

Tehran reaffirms its position in the following fresh statement:

“Contrary to what is being circulated by Western media, Iran will not commit to relinquishing control of the Strait of Hormuz. The only matter referred to in the memorandum of understanding is the return of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz after the end of the war,” Iran’s state media reported.

“The main objective of signing the memorandum of understanding is to end the war on all fronts”, it added.

All of this comes during a week which started with Iran and the US renewing a state of active fighting, and with Gulf states coming under Iranian ballistic missile attack, in retaliation for the latest waves of major US tomahawk strikes against Iran.

Still, Bloomberg and others are reporting the following: "US and Iran Nearing a Peace Deal Around G7 Meeting Next Week." What can be said except we've been here before, and time will tell. Did Trump cancel yesterday's planned strikes because a deal is really finally being forged?

More Latest Developments

via Newsquawk

• Iranian media Mehr News reported that the US-Iran 14-point MoU includes a US commitment to lift sanctions, withdraw its forces from around Iran, lift the naval blockade, reopen the Strait of Hormuz, lift oil sanctions, and release frozen Iranian funds; nuclear issue pushed back by 60 days for final agreement. Additionally, the US is required to present a plan to rebuild Iran’s economy, while the final negotiations between the two countries should focus on nuclear and economic issues, without discussing Iran’s missile program. This text still needs to be reviewed and finalized by the relevant institutions in Iran. [Click here for the full 14-point MoU] 
• The US-Iran MoU is likely to be signed next week, according to CBS citing sources, with Bloomberg later reporting that it could happen at the G7 meeting in Geneva next week. First steps include ensuring "freedom of trade" by demining and opening the Strait of Hormuz. The signing would kick off 60 days of talks to negotiate details. In principle, Iran would commit to a lockout of 15-20 years during which it would not enrich uranium and would dismantle its nuclear sites. In exchange for taking these steps, Iran would receive financial relief staggered over time and sequenced to correspond with compliance.
• US President Trump said he understands that Iran’s Supreme Leader has approved the deal and that lifting the blockade is part of the Iran deal, while he added that Iran will not have a nuclear weapon and that they want to make a deal a lot more than he does. Trump added it's a very strong MOU, they found Iran to be rational, and they will make a deal. Furthermore, he said the Strait will open immediately upon MOU signing, maybe Saturday or Monday, but doesn't want to set a deadline for the deal, and stated a Kharg Island deal would be off the table now.
• US President Trump said at a virtual campaign rally that they settled up with Iran and it is pretty much completed, while they got everything they wanted and claimed they ended the war with Iran.
• Israeli PM Netanyahu held a call with US President Trump on Thursday night regarding the possibility of a pending peace deal between the US and Iran, according to CBS News.
• Airplanes associated with US VP Vance's advance team are moving ahead of potential Iran MoU signing, according to New York Post reporter.
• Iran state media said Tehran would not cede control of Hormuz under draft US deal, AFP reported.
• Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson said the issues raised about the agreement are speculation and the issue has not been finalised, while it added that the situation in the Strait of Hormuz is less secure due to US actions and that what is being said about the time and place of signing the agreement is media speculation. Furthermore, the spokesperson said that Iran has so far not reached a final conclusion about the agreement, but stated that the text of the agreement is almost ready.
• Sources cited by Al Hadath said Iran has given final approval, which Qatar conveyed to the US.
• Iranian state media reported that explosions heard in Sirik was related to a confrontation with a vessel that violated regulations whilst attempting to pass through the Strait of Hormuz.
• Israeli airstrike reported in Jebchit, southern Lebanon, according to Al Araby.

Tyler Durden Fri, 06/12/2026 - 16:30

The Mullahs & The Lefty-Left

Authored by James Howard Kunstler,

"Until you are willing to harm the left more than they are willing to harm you, they will win. It’s really that simple."

- Aimee Terese on X

You’ll just have to stand by on whether this war with Iran is over or not, since the Shia true believers’ practice of Taqiyya is a permission structure for lying to infidels (us) when necessary — like, to advance global chaos that will bring the return of the Hidden Imam (Mahdi) to fill the world with justice, and establish Islamic rule. (Got that?) One might wonder, of course, whether the majority of Iran’s people have had enough of the true believers in charge and their true belief in apocalypse.

“Go ahead, press that button and blow up the infidels!”

President Trump’s promise to bring exactly that down on them seems to have had a clarifying effect. The option remains open to “bomb the shit out of them,” as he put it, while keeping their economy in a Macumba Death grip choke-hold. In preliminary strikes Thursday, the US Military might have demonstrated an ability to go after whatever they have left of missile and drone launch sites. In any case, skeptics abound. . . but, admit it, an actual peace agreement would be quite a coup.

It would be distasteful most of all to the mass formation lunatics of America’s Lefty-left “Resistance.” Anything that advances our country’s actual interests is hateful to them. In fact, when you think of it, the Lefty-left is in thrall to the same sort of world-ending chaos as the mullahs and their IRGC henchmen. The mullahs have their vision of the post-apocalyptic Islamic utopia and the Lefty-left has its dream of a post-revolutionary socialist nirvana where everyone is equal (except those who are more equal — and get to boss around the rest of us.)

Yeah, it’s an old story here in Western Civ, this recurring drive to level the existing social hierarchy so as to abolish the tendency of some people to do better in life than others. It never works out. It always leads to mass slaughter of some kind. It always ends in rueful disappointment and a return to the free-for-all that is the human project. The outstanding question might be: why do so many in the West continue to believe it?

The current uprising comes out of the strange conversion of Liberalism to Lefty-left Democratic-Socialist Progressivism. Remember, liberalism was pure live-and-let-live, with an emphasis on minimal government intrusion in our affairs, especially economic affairs. The Liberals of Boomerdom — the campus nirvanas of the 1960s — were contemptuous of government generally, but especially the FBI and the CIA. And, of course, the hippie vanguard was socially and culturally all about the freedom to do your own thing. Freedom of speech was a leading concern.

The Lefty-left, as it evolved under Barack Obama and “Joe Biden,” was about rigid intolerance for opposing ideas and maximal government involvement in your life, especially economic and sexual — making a pass at a girl became subject to litigation. The FBI was loosed on dissenters from Lefty-left policies. Juridical sadism became systematized as Lawfare. The Lefty-left constructed a huge censorship apparatus; no more freedom of speech. They used law and regulation to attempt social leveling; no more discipline in school for black kids because . . . racism! Discriminate against Whitey for jobs. . . anti-racism! Election fraud = “our democracy.” You see how all that went?

Turns out, they wanted to use the government to overthrow the government! And the social order it rode in on! Hence, the ten-year-long crusade to destroy one Donald Trump, the peculiar “Gray Champion” of our Fourth Turning, who turned out to be a staunch counter-revolutionary, that is, an opponent of this new Democratic-Socialist Progressive (wannabe-communist) corps of chaos agents.

One schematic way of understanding this dynamic is Peter Turchin’s theory of Elite Overproduction. By the early 2000s, with anybody and everybody going to college, there were not enough job positions in the real productive economy for this spewage of college degree-holding entrees to the Professional / Managerial Class. By this time, coincidentally, the colleges they were graduating from were infested by three generations of Marxist professors — i.e., adults enjoying cozy institutional security, with no experience in the real world, free to indulge in Marxian revenge fantasies and make them the basis of their teaching.

It was the perfect setup for the emergence of a matrix of NGOs and political activist orgs that could employ all these college graduates which the real economy had no place for.

And the new hires were pre-programmed in the ideology of grievance, tinged with racial and sexual animus in addition to economic complaint.

So, voila! — America (and Western Civ generally) became infested with these pernicious Lefty-left operations, which became symbionts of the government themselves, many of the orgs dependent on government (USAID) to fund their activities and pay the management. They got scads of additional money from wealthy freelance chaos maestros like George Soros, Bill Gates, Klaus Schwab, Reid Hoffman, Neville Roy Singham and others.

Mr. Trump is dismantling that matrix and the funding flows associated with it, at the same time that he attempts to reconstruct an economy based on the production of real goods. As it happens, that matrix of orgs amounts to the consolidated racketeering operation of the Democratic Party, and the party is going garishly insane at the prospect of losing its means to power.

The Lefty-left now is the Democratic Party. It has nothing whatsoever to do with what we used to call Liberalism. It’s a party of envy-driven, sadistic fanatics. And it is no accident that such a mind-set leads them to construct a permission structure for lying about everything they do. It’s all there in their primary manuals-of-operation: Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals, and Gene Sharp’s From Dictatorship to Democracy: A Conceptual Framework for Liberation.

In this way, they are just like the Shia mullahs of Iran who are privileged to lie to infidels who threaten their lust for apocalypse.

Mr. Trump doesn’t trust the insane mullahs and their IRGC wing-men, and he certainly shouldn’t trust the apparatchiks of the Democratic Party.

Each, in its own way, represents a kind of performative adolescent rebellion, and both them require a kind of resolute parental response: Daddy is in da house . . . and you’d better behave. Believe this: after Iran, the Democratic Party is next.

he hammer of law will be coming down.

Tyler Durden Fri, 06/12/2026 - 16:20

Federal Government Pauses Funding To Los Angeles Homeless Agency Citing Fraud Allegations

Authored by City News Service via The Epoch Times,

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) on June 11 suspended federal funding to the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority (LAHSA), cutting off millions of dollars to the L.A. region, over allegations of fraud and widespread mismanagement.

HUD Secretary Scott Turner testifies before the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing and Urban Development about his department's proposed FY2026 budget in the Dirksen Senate Office Building on Capitol Hill in Washington on May 14, 2026. Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

HUD action to suspend federal funding comes in the wake of an investigation into LAHSA, Secretary Scott Turner announced Thursday, adding that the agency has “uncovered evidence of LAHSA’s false statements and its irresponsible actions and failures,” including a lack of financial management and lack of safeguards against conflicts of interest.

The Los Angeles Continuum of Care (CoC), led by LAHSA, has received nearly $1 billion in taxpayer dollars over the last five years. Despite federal assistance, L.A. remains the epicenter of the nation’s “drug-fueled” homeless crisis, according to Turner.

“Under President Trump’s leadership, HUD will fund results, not corrupt failure or the homeless-industrial complex,” Turner said in a statement. “Year after year, hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars were funneled to LAHSA with little accountability. Meanwhile, homelessness skyrocketed. Taxpayers will no longer bankroll an organization that puts its own self-interests ahead of the Americans it was created to serve.”

HUD stated in a letter to LAHSA that suspension of funding will be final if the agency does not contest the notice by requesting a hearing. LAHSA must file a written hearing request within 30 days of receipt of the notice.

LAHSA officials pushed backed on the federal government’s claims, stating that its actions could put thousands of formerly homeless people back on the street.

“LAHSA received a letter from HUD announcing a suspension of CoC funding. After initial review, this appears to be a blatant attempt to pull yet more resources from Los Angeles, a city they have targeted time and again, when it is clear that LAHSA has either corrected or is in the process of correcting nearly all of the issues raised,” according to a statement from LASHA.

The organization maintained that local oversight actions have already resulted in strong repairs and reforms to LAHSA’s internal controls, which officials said are “accountable and viewable to the public.”

“If HUD’s Inspector General actually conducts a fair review of LAHSA’s current and future practices, they will clearly see how our systems now allow us to clearly track the work and investments that have resulted in L.A. outperforming the nation by reducing homelessness over the last two years,” LAHSA said in it’s statement.

A homeless encampment in Los Angeles, on Jan. 7, 2026. John Fredricks/The Epoch Times

“While the review plays out, our immediate priority is to explore all available options to ensure that federal funds continue to support the thousands of people who have been housed through LAHSA and our broader rehousing system,” the statement continued.

Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass expressed deep concern about HUD’s announcement, according to her office.

“Mayor Bass, too, has grave concerns about LAHSA and zero tolerance for mismanagement and negligence, which is why she previously directed the city to evaluate how to move away from the agency,” according to a statement from her office.

Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass speaks during an event in Los Angeles on May 8, 2026. Patrick T. Fallon/AFP via Getty Images

“Threatening federal funds does nothing to house people and jeopardizes the progress Mayor Bass has led to reduce homelessness for two years in a row, after it only went up in Los Angeles for years. Ultimately, people will lose their lives. We urge HUD to work with the city of Los Angeles to provide the necessary funding to reduce homelessness,” the statement continued.

County Supervisor Lindsey Horvath described HUD’s decision as a publicity stunt.

“I have been calling for change and accountability at LAHSA, but if this administration desires accountability, too, they should work WITH L.A. County,” Horvath said in a statement.

Lindsey Horvath speaks onstage at the 2019 Women's March Los Angeles in Los Angeles on Jan. 19, 2019. Araya Diaz/Getty Images for Women's March Los Angeles

HUD’s investigation found what it described as a “clear pattern of fraud.”

For example, in August 2023, LAHSA could not determine whether it used funding to pay for empty hotel rooms because the agency failed to record when individuals exited transitional motel housing, according to HUD.

Federal officials cited findings from a November 2024 audit conducted by L.A. City Controller Kenneth Mejia, which found LAHSA failed to spend approximately $513 million in homelessness funding budgeted for that year.

A letter from HUD referenced the resignation letter of former LAHSA CEO Va Lecia Adams Kellum, who stepped down last year. Her decision came after the L.A. County Board of Supervisors decided to move $300 million and hundreds of workers away from the homeless agency into the new Department of Homeless Services and Housing.

An investigation by LAist found Kellum signed a $2.1 million contract with a nonprofit organization that employed her husband.

LAHSA has faced criticism for providing late payments to service providers, maintaining inadequate records and failing to monitor contract and spending more accurately.

The agency has implemented new policies, and created online public dashboards to address these issues.

Los Angeles city and county officials have also made moves to improve transparency and accountability regarding homeless funding, as well as to ensure better outcomes of programs and services.

People approach a woman resting in a homeless encampment in Los Angeles, on Jan. 7, 2026. John Fredricks/The Epoch Times

Despite the allegations that Los Angeles has failed to reduce homelessness, officials said recent data showed significant progress.

In June, Gov. Gavin Newsom announced California achieved the largest reduction in unsheltered homelessness in the nation last year, and saw the largest decline in unsheltered homelessness since 2009, citing HUD’s data.

Los Angeles experienced a 10.3 percent drop in unsheltered homelessness, with the largest regional drop nationwide, according to HUD’s data.

The Los Angeles region saw the first decline in homelessness starting in 2024. LAHSA’s 2025 point-in-time count showed there was a 4 percent decrease in homeless people across the county, while in the city of Los Angeles, there was a 3.4 percent drop.

Data showed that unsheltered homelessness in the county declined by 9.5 percent in 2025 compared to the prior year, and it has dropped by 14 percent over the last two years. Additionally, there has been about an 8.5 percent increase of unhoused individuals entering interim housing, such as shelters and other forms of temporary housing.

In the city of L.A., unsheltered homelessness declined by 7.9 percent in 2025, and it has dropped by 17.5 percent over the last two years. LAHSA reported there has been a 4.7 percent increase in unhoused individuals entering temporary housing in the city.

Tyler Durden Fri, 06/12/2026 - 15:40

India Accuses West Of Double Standards Over US Russia Oil Sanctions

Submitted By Tsvetana Paraskova of OilPrice.com

The on-and-off U.S. sanctions on Russian oil and the flipping U.S. position regarding India’s oil purchases from Russia highlight the double standards of the Western nations, Indian Foreign Minister S Jaishankar said on Friday.

India turned en masse to Russian oil in 2022, when the U.S. and the EU imposed sanctions on Moscow due to the invasion of Ukraine. Four years later, India is a major buyer of Russia’s crude and Russia is India’s single-largest oil supplier.

“At that time, the US specifically asked India to buy Russian oil to stabilize the oil market,” Jaishankar was quoted as saying at an event in Finland, referring to the situation on the market in 2022.

India buys oil based on price and availability, the foreign minister said in response to reporters’ remarks that India is “too sympathetic to Russia” and “too willing to buy oil from Russia”.

“Circumstances pushed us in a certain direction,” NDTV World quoted Jaishankar as saying.

The U.S. lifted sanctions on Russian oil this year after the Iran war pushed oil prices well above $100 per barrel in April, after having slapped tariffs on India for buying Russian crude.

“Let’s not pretend there’s some great principle involved here. I don’t think making this about sanctimony is really warranted,” the Indian minister said.

In the current supply crisis, Indian refiners have secured crude supply at least through August as they boost purchases from the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Africa, and Brazil.

As supply from the Middle East crashes, India is buying growing volumes of crude from West African producers Nigeria and Angola, as well as from South American producers Brazil and Venezuela.

India is now also the key importer of currently de-sanctioned Russian crude on water. Russia has remained India’s top crude supplier in the past two months, thanks to the waivers from the U.S., the same country that was insisting early this year that India slash purchases of Russian oil.

Tyler Durden Fri, 06/12/2026 - 15:00

Gabbard Rescinds Intelligence Committee Reports On Mysterious Syndrome

Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times,

Outgoing Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard has retracted intelligence community reports on mysterious health problems known as Havana Syndrome, according to a memorandum released on June 11.

Gabbard found that the intelligence community assessments of the anomalous health incidents, released in 2023 and 2025, failed to meet the community’s analytic standards.

That included selectively excluding intelligence and evidence that did not support the conclusions and relying on an “ethically flawed medical study without noting methodological critiques,” Gabbard’s office said in the memo, sent to members of Congress.

The 2023 assessment concluded it was very unlikely that a foreign adversary was behind the incidents, which have impacted staffers in countries such as Cuba and China.

The updated assessment released in 2025 said most intelligence agencies still held it was very unlikely an enemy was responsible for the syndrome, but two components judged there was a “roughly even chance” that a foreign actor had used a novel weapon to target Americans, or had developed such a weapon.

Gabbard’s team said future assessments on the matter would adhere to “rigorous ethical standards incorporating all available intelligence sources and engaging a broad range of experts from agencies including the CIA.”

Rep. Rick Crawford (R-Ark.), the former chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence CIA Subcommittee, who has criticized the government reports, praised the new development.

“The assessment was deliberately manufactured and used to discredit some of our nation’s bravest and impede their access to medical care. As was the case with other high-visibility intelligence assessments, it fell far short of analytic integrity standards,” Crawford wrote in a post on X.

He added that the retractions were “a glimmer of hope for our nation’s intelligence officers, service members, and diplomats stationed around the world who have defended this country in austere locations and subsequently had the nation they served turn its back on them.”

The subcommittee said in a 2024 report that it was increasingly likely that a foreign adversary was behind some number of the reported health problems, and that the 2023 assessment was developed “in a manner inconsistent with analytic integrity and thoroughness.”

The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine said in 2020 that the most likely mechanism behind the incidents was directed, pulsed radio-frequency energy, citing symptoms people have described, such as perceptual dizziness.

Government employees reporting the problems have had difficulty obtaining treatment, the U.S. Government Accountability Office said in July 2024, recommending that the military develop written guidance and create a plan to rectify those difficulties.

Gabbard said last month that she is resigning from her position as the director of national security, citing her husband’s recent cancer diagnosis.

President Donald Trump said on June 11 that he is nominating Jay Clayton, the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York and a former Securities and Exchange Commission chairman, as director of national intelligence.

The job oversees the coordination of 18 intelligence agencies.

Tyler Durden Fri, 06/12/2026 - 14:20

Gabbard Rescinds Intelligence Committee Reports On Mysterious Syndrome

Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times,

Outgoing Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard has retracted intelligence community reports on mysterious health problems known as Havana Syndrome, according to a memorandum released on June 11.

Gabbard found that the intelligence community assessments of the anomalous health incidents, released in 2023 and 2025, failed to meet the community’s analytic standards.

That included selectively excluding intelligence and evidence that did not support the conclusions and relying on an “ethically flawed medical study without noting methodological critiques,” Gabbard’s office said in the memo, sent to members of Congress.

The 2023 assessment concluded it was very unlikely that a foreign adversary was behind the incidents, which have impacted staffers in countries such as Cuba and China.

The updated assessment released in 2025 said most intelligence agencies still held it was very unlikely an enemy was responsible for the syndrome, but two components judged there was a “roughly even chance” that a foreign actor had used a novel weapon to target Americans, or had developed such a weapon.

Gabbard’s team said future assessments on the matter would adhere to “rigorous ethical standards incorporating all available intelligence sources and engaging a broad range of experts from agencies including the CIA.”

Rep. Rick Crawford (R-Ark.), the former chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence CIA Subcommittee, who has criticized the government reports, praised the new development.

“The assessment was deliberately manufactured and used to discredit some of our nation’s bravest and impede their access to medical care. As was the case with other high-visibility intelligence assessments, it fell far short of analytic integrity standards,” Crawford wrote in a post on X.

He added that the retractions were “a glimmer of hope for our nation’s intelligence officers, service members, and diplomats stationed around the world who have defended this country in austere locations and subsequently had the nation they served turn its back on them.”

The subcommittee said in a 2024 report that it was increasingly likely that a foreign adversary was behind some number of the reported health problems, and that the 2023 assessment was developed “in a manner inconsistent with analytic integrity and thoroughness.”

The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine said in 2020 that the most likely mechanism behind the incidents was directed, pulsed radio-frequency energy, citing symptoms people have described, such as perceptual dizziness.

Government employees reporting the problems have had difficulty obtaining treatment, the U.S. Government Accountability Office said in July 2024, recommending that the military develop written guidance and create a plan to rectify those difficulties.

Gabbard said last month that she is resigning from her position as the director of national security, citing her husband’s recent cancer diagnosis.

President Donald Trump said on June 11 that he is nominating Jay Clayton, the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York and a former Securities and Exchange Commission chairman, as director of national intelligence.

The job oversees the coordination of 18 intelligence agencies.

Tyler Durden Fri, 06/12/2026 - 14:20

Democrats Divided On Platner As GOP Reportedly Has Opposition Research That Will Destroy Him

Graham Platner may have easily won Maine's Democratic Senate primary Tuesday, but his own party is already trying to figure out how to get rid of him. Democrats openly admit they cannot afford to lose this race if they want to retake the Senate, and Platner is already complicating their plans. Yet, the chaos involving Platner may have only just begun. Maine's Democratic establishment is clearly uneasy, and national Democrats are not hiding it.

AP Photo/Robert F. Bukaty

According to a report from NBC News, behind the scenes, party operatives are reportedly circulating negative polling on Platner, exploring whether funding threats might pressure him to withdraw, and testing public opinion with a text poll sent on primary day that asked voters about the allegations of his abusive and demeaning treatment of women.

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) is fully in Platner's corner, and he made his reasoning transparent. "There is no great secret that there is a strong division within the Democratic Party," Sanders said, criticizing the party establishment and praising Platner for challenging it. On the abuse allegations specifically, Sanders is choosing to take Platner's denials at face value.

"He denies it, she says something else, but what I do know is that there are people in the United States Senate right now who are not saints." He then pivoted to senators who voted for the Iraq War and tax cuts. Sanders is essentially arguing that Platner's personal failings are less disqualifying than the establishment's policy sins. Even Tina Smith (D-Minn.), who replaced Al Franken after his resignation over groping allegations, endorsed Platner without hesitation.

But the anxiety over Platner with the Democratic Party is very real. Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-Mich.) outright said she is "not comfortable" with Platner as the nominee. "I will not defend someone with that kind of history." Former Rep. Tom Malinowski argued that the steady stream of revelations says more than any single allegation. "If a man's past keeps surprising us, it's a safe bet that his present and future will continue to surprise us as well," he said, calling Platner a "moral dilemma" and warning Democrats against repeating what he described as the mistake of embracing candidates more defined by their anti-establishment appeal than their fitness for office.

"The easiest, most logical and most likely path to picking up seats is with Maine in our column," a senior Democratic strategist said. "It's a struggle to see how we get the majority without Maine." Platner's internal polling already shows his lead over five-term incumbent Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) shrinking to four points - this in a state that went for Kamala Harris by seven in 2024. He is underperforming the baseline in the most favorable environment Democrats have had in years.

But the Platner campaign is showing no signs of leaving voluntarily.

"The Democrats of Maine have made clear who their choice is," Platner adviser Rebecca Katz said. "And the rest of the party should honor that choice." That may be true. It may also be exactly what the Republican Party is counting on.

Under Maine law, Platner would need to voluntarily withdraw by July 13 for Democrats to replace him on the ballot. According to NBC News, a Republican strategist involved in Senate races said the GOP is deliberately withholding additional opposition research until the candidate-replacement deadline passes, so Democrats are unable to replace him the same way Joe Biden was pushed out of the 2024 presidential race after it became politically impossible to keep him on the ticket.

Once that deadline passes and Republicans unleash whatever opposition research they have been sitting on, the Democrats will have no options left, just a nominee they cannot fully defend in a race they cannot afford to lose.

Tyler Durden Fri, 06/12/2026 - 14:00

Democrats Divided On Platner As GOP Reportedly Has Opposition Research That Will Destroy Him

Graham Platner may have easily won Maine's Democratic Senate primary Tuesday, but his own party is already trying to figure out how to get rid of him. Democrats openly admit they cannot afford to lose this race if they want to retake the Senate, and Platner is already complicating their plans. Yet, the chaos involving Platner may have only just begun. Maine's Democratic establishment is clearly uneasy, and national Democrats are not hiding it.

AP Photo/Robert F. Bukaty

According to a report from NBC News, behind the scenes, party operatives are reportedly circulating negative polling on Platner, exploring whether funding threats might pressure him to withdraw, and testing public opinion with a text poll sent on primary day that asked voters about the allegations of his abusive and demeaning treatment of women.

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) is fully in Platner's corner, and he made his reasoning transparent. "There is no great secret that there is a strong division within the Democratic Party," Sanders said, criticizing the party establishment and praising Platner for challenging it. On the abuse allegations specifically, Sanders is choosing to take Platner's denials at face value.

"He denies it, she says something else, but what I do know is that there are people in the United States Senate right now who are not saints." He then pivoted to senators who voted for the Iraq War and tax cuts. Sanders is essentially arguing that Platner's personal failings are less disqualifying than the establishment's policy sins. Even Tina Smith (D-Minn.), who replaced Al Franken after his resignation over groping allegations, endorsed Platner without hesitation.

But the anxiety over Platner with the Democratic Party is very real. Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-Mich.) outright said she is "not comfortable" with Platner as the nominee. "I will not defend someone with that kind of history." Former Rep. Tom Malinowski argued that the steady stream of revelations says more than any single allegation. "If a man's past keeps surprising us, it's a safe bet that his present and future will continue to surprise us as well," he said, calling Platner a "moral dilemma" and warning Democrats against repeating what he described as the mistake of embracing candidates more defined by their anti-establishment appeal than their fitness for office.

"The easiest, most logical and most likely path to picking up seats is with Maine in our column," a senior Democratic strategist said. "It's a struggle to see how we get the majority without Maine." Platner's internal polling already shows his lead over five-term incumbent Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) shrinking to four points - this in a state that went for Kamala Harris by seven in 2024. He is underperforming the baseline in the most favorable environment Democrats have had in years.

But the Platner campaign is showing no signs of leaving voluntarily.

"The Democrats of Maine have made clear who their choice is," Platner adviser Rebecca Katz said. "And the rest of the party should honor that choice." That may be true. It may also be exactly what the Republican Party is counting on.

Under Maine law, Platner would need to voluntarily withdraw by July 13 for Democrats to replace him on the ballot. According to NBC News, a Republican strategist involved in Senate races said the GOP is deliberately withholding additional opposition research until the candidate-replacement deadline passes, so Democrats are unable to replace him the same way Joe Biden was pushed out of the 2024 presidential race after it became politically impossible to keep him on the ticket.

Once that deadline passes and Republicans unleash whatever opposition research they have been sitting on, the Democrats will have no options left, just a nominee they cannot fully defend in a race they cannot afford to lose.

Tyler Durden Fri, 06/12/2026 - 14:00

Ministry Of Truth: UK Government To Block 'False Information' During 'Crisis Events'

Authored by Steve Watson via modernity,

Vague new rules will allow UK regulators to pressure platforms over "legal but harmful" content whenever government ministers declare a crisis, while the same government ploughs ahead with mandatory phone scanning, digital ID lockdowns, and jail threats for tech bosses who refuse to spy on every device.

The latest move from Northern Ireland Secretary Hilary Benn makes explicit what privacy campaigners have long warned: the Online Safety Act is being weaponised far beyond any child-protection claim.

Benn confirmed that the internet regulator will now wield enhanced powers to tackle "false information" online during "times of crisis," directly tying the recent Belfast unrest to this framework. The regulator has already contacted platforms, with ministers asserting that violence "appears to have been incited online."

'If we are living in a country where you cannot report the truth, we are living under a dictator.'

Adam Brooks warns of government censorship as Labour announces a social media crackdown 'in times of crisis' after the Belfast unrest. pic.twitter.com/6yyNDXqWNh

- GB News (@GBNEWS) June 11, 2026

Benn stated that if people put online 'false information,' "it is not acceptable and it may well be a criminal offence depending on the circumstances as the chief constable made clear yesterday."

When asked how a "time of crisis" would be defined, Benn said it "will be set out in due course."

The unrest followed a serious knife attack on a local man by an asylum seeker and escalated into protests involving vehicle fires, arson attacks on homes, and clashes with police that injured a dozen officers.

In addition, Ofcom, the UK's regulator for communications, responsible for overseeing broadcasting, telecommunications and - since the passage of the Online Safety Act - the major online platforms, is now using its powers to direct platforms toward enhanced, crisis-specific moderation measures whenever it or ministers identify spikes in 'illegal 'harmful' content during whatever it deems a 'crisis' event.

An Ofcom open letter published this week directly addresses the Belfast situation. It states: "Following a serious knife attack that took place in Belfast on Monday night, we have seen civil unrest in the city, some of which appears to have been incited online. This has included racially motivated incidents of violence, arson attacks on homes and vehicles, and attacks against police."

The letter goes on to remind online service providers of their duties under the Online Safety Act 2023 to assess and mitigate risks of 'illegal' content, including material amounting to offences of stirring up hatred or provoking violence.

It emphasises that "previous crises have shown how a sudden increase in the amount of illegal content circulating online can manifest in hate crime and violence in the real world" and that "usual content moderation systems and processes may not be sufficient in such circumstances."

Crucially, Ofcom confirmed new measures added to its online safety codes of practice under which platforms "should have procedures in place to respond to spikes in illegal content during a crisis." These measures, confirmed the day before the letter, are expected to be enacted by platforms immediately, without waiting for parliamentary approval. The letter stresses that services must "act now to address illegal content" and follow existing crisis protocols where they exist.

This directly engages the core claim in widely shared analysis on X that the Online Safety Act - repeatedly sold to the public as a child-protection measure - is now being applied to adult content and civil unrest with no reference to children in the regulator's own crisis guidance.

The government said the Online Safety Act was about protecting children. We were called conspiracy theorists for saying it wasn't!

Well er ... Ofcom is writing to platforms about "crisis situations", civil unrest and enhanced moderation measures. (Blocking posts they don't like)... pic.twitter.com/7oJybQORhQ

- Bernie (@Artemisfornow) June 11, 2026

Given that the government and it's mouthpiece media has spent the entire week claiming Elon Musk and Nigel Farage, along with anyone commenting on the latest savage migrant attack, is inciting violence, you can see exactly where this is going.

The UK politicians will be more upset about this post than the attempted beheading.

It's simple, the violence the politicians import never comes close to touching them or their families. So they simply do not care.

- MAZE (@mazemoore) June 10, 2026

According to the UK government, you're considered a terrorist if you believe that Western culture is under threat from mass migration.

Yes, this is really on their website. pic.twitter.com/XLh2X6Hri3

- iamyesyouareno (@iamyesyouareno) June 9, 2026

It has. Not even kidding. They've called it the National Counter Disinformation Centre.

- Bernie (@Artemisfornow) June 11, 2026

The same analysis highlights how the definition of crisis has been stretched. Cabinet Office guidance in the Amber Book states that the terms "emergency" and "crisis" are used interchangeably under the Civil Contingencies Act 2004.

An emergency covers events or situations which cause or may cause serious damage to human welfare, the environment or UK security - explicitly including situations that "have not yet been harmful but have the potential to be." No fresh parliamentary debate or vote was required for this expansive interpretation to underpin regulatory action during the Belfast unrest.

Statements from Technology Secretary Liz Kendall also indicate that the government intends to amend online safety laws to give the regulator stronger powers to require platforms to take tougher action on material that it says could incite violence or disorder during periods of "heightened social and political tension."

Those who use social media to incite violence and disorder are breaking the law.
Next week we will lay in Parliament an update to the Online Safety Act requiring services to take quicker action to remove illegal content circulating during times of crisis.

- Liz Kendall (@leicesterliz) June 10, 2026

Critics argue this effectively allows the state to restrict access to real-time footage and non-government sources of information during such periods, framing it as a direct threat to freedom of expression and the public's ability to access unfiltered information.

These concerns sit alongside the Ofcom letter's call for platforms to have crisis response plans ready for spikes in 'illegal' content, including content that the government decrees could stir up hatred or provoke violence.

Further reports emerged of the UK government contacting journalists covering the Northern Ireland events to instruct their reporting, attributed to an anonymous government source.

?BREAKING: The UK Government are contacting JOURNALISTS covering the event in Northern Ireland to INSTRUCT their REPORTING

Attributed to an unspecified and anonymous 'GOVERNMENT SOURCE'

We live in dangerous times
Keir Starmer is a tyrant pic.twitter.com/uqDg811iu4

- Basil the Great (@BasilTheGreat) June 11, 2026

According to the communications shared online, journalists were reportedly directed on the preferred framing of the unrest, including how to characterise the protests and the underlying causes.

This intervention occurred as Ofcom was simultaneously issuing its crisis guidance to platforms, prompting concerns that the government is attempting to align coverage across both traditional media and online spaces to limit unapproved narratives during periods of public disorder.

Alongside the new regulatory powers, the UK government is rolling out something called PoliceAI, a new National Centre for AI in Policing launched with £115 million in funding. This centralised body consolidates AI development and deployment across all 43 forces in England and Wales, focusing on tools such as live facial recognition, predictive analytics, automated data analysis and deepfake detection.

The government states that it is designed to speed up investigations and automate routine policing tasks while creating a single national framework for testing and rolling out the technology.

The UK is so cooked, man... The UK government's policing office has launched PoliceAI, a new centre that will develop and provide AI tools for police forces across the country.

>These tools are designed to help officers deal with changing crime by making their work faster and... pic.twitter.com/7gcAbikslf

- Pirat_Nation ? (@Pirat_Nation) June 11, 2026

In the context of the new crisis powers, PoliceAI provides authorities with automated systems capable of scanning vast amounts of online content and communications in real time. These tools can flag material deemed to spread "false information" or incite disorder during government-designated crisis events, enabling rapid coordination with Ofcom for content removal.

Combined with facial recognition and predictive capabilities, the system allows police to identify and target individuals posting or sharing information the authorities wish to suppress, turning AI into a powerful mechanism for narrative control and the blocking of inconvenient facts.

I bet they plan on evaluating every social media post with this AI.

After all, AI is just a search engine.
A redditified search engine...

Not even Orwell could come up with this. https://t.co/cjOAIIlkRf

- Ironsmit2323 (@YorkSmit2323) June 11, 2026

These developments do not come in isolation. They connect directly to the surveillance architecture we've relentlessly detailed: plans to jail tech CEOs for up to five years if they refuse to build client-side scanning systems capable of reviewing every photo, video and message on user devices before encryption.

The same framework underpins the coming digital ID lockdown on every phone, under which biometric verification and government-issued ID would be required for full smartphone functionality, with non-compliant devices restricted to limited "child mode."

Encrypted messaging service Signal is resisting the wider demands for phone screening and content scanning. President Meredith Whittaker has stated Signal would "absolutely, 100% walk" from the UK rather than weaken its end-to-end encryption.

#UK: The head of Signal has threatened to pull the company out of the UK entirely rather than weaken its encryption protocols to satisfy government regulators. This would be a serious blow to privacy. The government must protect end-to-end encryption: https://t.co/gKww7NcnXS 1/2

- Index on Censorship (@IndexCensorship) June 11, 2026

Signal and Mullvad warn about the UK's plans to scan people's phones #Signal #Mullvad #UK https://t.co/Zhkfg2whIn

- CyberInsider (@CyberInsidercom) June 10, 2026

Big Brother Watch director Silkie Carlo has warned that the plans "will only result in population-wide ID checks for all of us to use our phones, tablets and laptops" and amount to "ID checks for the internet." She described the requirement as invoking "the death of anonymity and internet privacy" and the overall approach as "a crossing of the Rubicon that would make the UK one of the most authoritarian internet regimes in the world."

The UK digital ID scheme is the lynchpin of a dystopian mass surveillance grid to be implemented for all from cradle to grave.

The government is pressing ahead to expanded regulatory powers over online content during vaguely defined "crisis events," with platforms told to implement special moderation protocols immediately. At the same time the government is advancing device-level scanning, embedding digital ID requirements on every phone, and threatening executives with prison for non-compliance. Instructions to journalists and pressure on platforms complete the picture.

This is nothing less than the construction of a complete surveillance control grid that monitors devices, verifies identity for basic access, and suppresses inconvenient information whenever those in power declare an emergency.

Free speech, privacy and access to unfiltered reality are the direct targets. Resistance from platforms willing to exit rather than comply, and from citizens who refuse to accept the pretext, remains the only obstacle to its full dystopian implementation.

Tyler Durden Fri, 06/12/2026 - 13:40