Zero Hedge

Iran's Military Believes US Is Preparing To Resume Attacks

Iran's Military Believes US Is Preparing To Resume Attacks

Iran's central military command has announced it believes the United States has made the decision to resume military attacsk on the Islamic Republic.

Citing the country's General Staff of the Iranian Armed Forces, state media IRIB states that "According to intelligence received, the US has once again decided - with the green light from certain regional countries - to resume actions against Iran during a joint meeting in a European nation."

Getty Images

At the same time Iranian leadership again warned US allies in the region that they'll be considered "complicit" if the US resumes it military assault on the Islamic Republic. The Iranian military HQ stated that "any mistakes will result in painful attacks."

Tehran further indicated Sunday that it is still awaiting Trump's response to its conditions for ending the war. Its chief negotiator Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf confirmed to AFP that Iran's demands were sent to Washington via the Qataris.

Starting Saturday night there was an avalanche of online chatter over potential new escalation, given President Trump abruptly cut short a visit to Camp David.

Some pundits saw in this a sign of some kind of imminent military action in the Middle East, also amid reports that extra military hardware is being sent to the region.

But others have suggested this is just setting up for another TACO moment, and reports of escalation is just the White House trying to instill fear and uncertainty in Tehran.

There's also speculation that Washington could be moving towards direct intervention in the Saudi-Yemen conflict, after the Houthis have been attacking key Saudi Aramco oil sites. Also, Riyadh has just come under attack for the first time of the war.

In the background is a new State Department warning to Americans to avoid all travel to the Middle East. A statement indicated that the Iran war could quickly worsen.

“This military conflict has the potential to escalate rapidly. Americans outside the Middle East should seriously reconsider travel to and through the region,” the State Department said late Saturday on X. It said that Americans currently in the region should "exercise heightened vigilance and be aware of potential flight cancellations, airspace closures, and travel disruptions."

Tyler Durden Sun, 09/20/2026 - 17:00

Trump Says His Planned DC Arch Would Host Drones And Snipers

Trump Says His Planned DC Arch Would Host Drones And Snipers

Via Headline USA,

President Donald Trump said Sunday that the massive arch he wants to build between the Lincoln Memorial and Arlington National Cemetery would become a "top grade military complex" able to host drones and snipers while storing ammunition.

It is one more example of how Trump is insisting that his initiatives to beautify the White House and the city are also serving a defensive purpose.

Trump has been calling the new White House ballroom a "military complex" and arguing it is necessary for national security purposes.

The Republican president said in a social media post that he had agreed, at the "strong request" of the military, to convert the planned 250-foot-tall memorial arch "into a top grade Military Complex/Triumphal Arch, to house, store, and have the rapid ability to use large numbers of drones, plus Snipers, on both the roof and plaza areas, and additionally have and hold large quantities of sniper ammunition in storage."

After teasing it in October 2025, Trump has continued to promote his vision for a 250-foot triumphal arch situated between the Lincoln Memorial and Arlington National Cemetery.

The arch will “celebrate the triumphs of the American people, inspire patriotism and love of country, and beautify our nation’s capital,” the Department of the Interior, as its sponsor, declared in its project materials.

The arch (one of several projects that the Republican president is pursuing to leave his lasting imprint on Washington) is currently awaiting final approval from the National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC), a federal review panel dominated by Trump appointees.

Among the others are the white House ballroom, renaming and renovating the Kennedy Center, refurbishing the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool and rebuilding a golf course in East Potomac Park that could significantly reduce the public's access to running and biking paths.

Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.) on Sunday criticized Trump’s announcement.

“Putting a drone launching site directly in the landing path for [Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport] is a stupid, dangerous, and unworkable idea,” Beyer said on X.

“Trump clearly expects to lose a lawsuit and therefore wants to set up a pretext to argue that the arch is tied to national security.”

 

Tyler Durden Sun, 09/20/2026 - 16:30

With The Fed Behind Us…

With The Fed Behind Us…

By Peter Tchir of Academy Securities

With the Fed Behind Us…

The 10-year Treasury sold off after the Fed bounced Thursday, only to resume selling, finishing the week just under 5%. Stocks, which seemed to move up and down with Treasuries, decided to move to the beat of their own drum into the close on Friday. Similarly, for the past few weeks, it seems that if you knew oil was up/down, you could predict yields would be up/down. Not on Friday.

On this special day we will build on Thursday’s post-FOMC report: Back to Regularly Scheduled Programming. You might be wondering “what makes today special”? Well, for the first time ever, the T-Report has the same access to the White House as CNN, though not quite how we hoped it would happen. The ban definitely seems weird. Not sure what to make of it, and maybe it will be nothing, but it does seem strange at the very least.

In Thursday’s report we touched on:

  • Oil and energy prices, which we will focus on more today.
  • Japanese Yen. Support has broken the 155 level solidly (closing at 156.9), which is likely to cause it to weaken further as a lot of people were willing to bet on I Am the House Now Bessent.
  • Compute Build and AI Spend. Increasingly, this is likely to be a focus of this week’s Trump/Xi summit.
  • Space. We need to do more to focus on the opportunities and risks (commercial and national security) for space. Working with some of Academy’s GIG members to more thoroughly assess this, as the national security aspect seems to be gaining more attention.
The Houthis and Saudi Arabia

Should we be treating what is going on between the Houthis and the Saudis as a subset of the Iran/U.S. war? The Houthis are, after all, a proxy of Iran. The Saudis have been working with the U.S. and the President, so are they merely just an ally? A subset, an extension, or something in its own right?

While Iran is likely influencing the Houthis and certainly has given them the tools to cause havoc and mayhem, the Houthis seem to be taking the initiative. Maybe they see the U.S. as distracted with Iran. Maybe they see the U.S. testing the Saudis’ loyalty as an ally. In any case, it seems like they have seen an opportunity and are taking strides to set their agenda in and around the Red Sea. They have seemingly gone out of their way to avoid any attack against U.S. assets. Instead, they are hitting the Saudis where it hurts: their energy industry. And according to reports, that includes jet fuel facilities at the airport.

We cautioned about getting excited that the pipeline damage inflicted on the “alternative to the Strait” pipeline would be repaired quickly. One, the damage seemed more extensive than just to the pipeline. Two, and more importantly, there is no evidence that new strikes could be thwarted. It seems like we should start pricing in “disruptions” to the energy complexes that are outside the scope of the U.S./Iran conflict.

Will the Saudis be able to defend themselves? Will they “beg” America to get involved more directly? If they do, will the U.S. get involved? Will they try to disrupt traffic through the Red Sea? If so, how much can they do before the U.S. gets involved? I’d ask how much before Europe would get involved, but that seems like it is too unlikely to even think about (they probably should, but it doesn’t seem imminent).

Markets seem to only react badly when actual events affecting energy prices occur. Markets seem to react positively to any story, rumor, or hope that is positive. That relationship may need to change…

Even My Mother Knows Diesel Prices are High!

Usually, by the time my mother knows something is affecting financial markets, it is a pretty good time to fade the trade as it has become totally consensus. I’m not so sure about that this time.

Since the war began, we’ve been focused not as much on oil, but more on LNG and Diesel. Both are “tighter” than oil itself. More susceptible to supply chain disruptions. Less flexibility to work around. So rather than “fading” something we’ve argued that people should focus on, we should just embrace that people (including my mother) are now thinking about the dangers of rising diesel prices: for industry, transportation, and agriculture (and maybe the “back up” generators at some data centers).

We already busted through the “red circle” that we had in last week’s version of this chart.

This is a big deal and has created some chatter about restricting diesel exports from the U.S. As discussed in prior reports, that is not likely to work (even with restrictions, the domestic price isn’t likely to deviate too far from Global Price minus Transportation minus Storage). It is also likely to hurt U.S. companies going forward as customers entering into new contracts need to consider this possibility (plus there are likely to be some legal challenges).

Rising diesel prices are high on my list of inflation pressures that are mounting and difficult to control (unless you are in charge of the war efforts).

One Path to Victory with Iran

Anything could happen. We could all wake up on Monday to find that there is a “deal” that is on the table and close to getting done. We did have an MOU after all (though from day 1, it seemed that although we all saw a written version, there were “unwritten” versions or promises made, that were inconsistent and it seemed like neither side had really listened to what the other side had said or wanted). I won’t discount some sort of “deal” but it seems difficult to believe that it will be one the U.S. can claim as a major victory, if it happens now (given the current news flow surrounding the war).

The economic sanctions could pressure Iran into a deal. The blockade has been very successful. Iran seems to be able to “contain” the amount of trade going through the Strait against their interests (some is going through, but Iran is still able to scare many into not trying to run through the Strait).

  • Can the increased focus on sanctions work? Sure, but in a matter of weeks? Hmmmm…I find it difficult to believe that a nation that kills its own citizens on an industrial scale will collapse in weeks, or even a couple of months. They have had experience with evading sanctions for decades, albeit sanctions not being enforced as strictly as they are supposedly being enforced now.
  • It remains unclear how sanctions will work unless the U.S. is willing to go after China (and Turkey) to the full extent of what Bessent has outlined. So far, that doesn’t seem to be happening. It will almost certainly be a discussion point this week for Trump and Xi.

Sanctions are helping and might be enough to force a good deal, but that doesn’t seem like a “tomorrow” sort of event.

Increasingly, we are being asked about “knocking out” Iran’s infrastructure. Could that happen? Yes, but here is a quick assessment:

  • Anything clearly military focused has already likely been hit and destroyed.
  • That leaves “dual use” facilities. Facilities that have both a military use and a commercial use. Let’s say energy sources close to military facilities that also service communities. Some of these are viable targets as the military usage is enough to justify going after them. Similar for some bridges necessary for moving troops or armaments. But this can be tricky: on a legal and humanitarian level. Global perception, while not necessarily at the top of the admin’s concerns, should still be a concern.

This is a possible path for the U.S., but it could be a difficult balancing act of doing enough to force change, without doing too much reputational (or even legal) damage.

Taking the Islands that control the Strait: after the midterm elections.

One theory that General (ret.) Bellon discussed this week is taking action to secure the islands that control the Strait, culminating possibly with Kharg Island.

The rationale is:

  • Wait until after the midterms, because risks to U.S. troops will increase, but it won’t be as politicized as it would be prior to the elections. Prior to the election, IRAN WILL HAVE MORE OPTIONS than after the elections. Basically, if Iran believes the midterms represent a hurdle to Trump, they can take different actions than they can after the midterms have occurred. There is no longer some “deadline” for Trump, giving him more flexibility and changing Iran’s response function. This makes a lot of sense.
  • Sanctions may work to create a deal, but anything resembling a different regime is not likely. Taking the islands that control the Strait, and eventually Kharg Island itself, would cripple their energy industry and demonstrate real weakness on their part. It will be difficult to do without loss of further life, but when so many other options leave us with a “kick the can” option, the President may decide an option that has horrible costs may be better than going through this effort every few years.
  • Signaling the will to do this might be enough to change Iran’s negotiating stance. Taking even one small, relatively insignificant island that is the easiest to defend may also change the calculus for Iran. The U.S. might win not by taking every Island, including Kharg, but the start of turning a threat into reality could be enough.

What to watch for:

  • The U.S. moving vessels with top-notch medical facilities into proximity (less than 1 hour by helicopter, say as a guideline) would be a good indication. The military’s commitment to saving each and every life possible, and providing the best care possible, is real. So, they would need to move these vessels that can perform state-of-the-art surgery and operations, close enough to help any soldiers needing aid.

Of all the discussions that I’ve heard around a “post-midterm” victory, this path seems reasonable. Maybe the theory would even be that once Iran sees the ships moving in, and knows the President isn’t potentially hamstrung by upcoming midterms, it capitulates and looks for a deal? Maybe a bit optimistic, but it resonates with me.

Greenland Deal

The President announced a deal. I will reserve comment until we see the terms of the actual deal (so far, as has become the norm, there are all sorts of assertions from a variety of sides, with little documentation).

The deal could be a real game changer, as the President implied via Truth Social. It might just be an updated formulation of agreements already in place (never hurts to update something that was written long before the polar ice caps were melting, when computers were the size of a house, and rare earths and critical minerals weren’t required in vast amounts).

A win in any case, but how much of a win remains to be seen. And could it have been done without all of the “annex” / “take” Greenland rhetoric?

Trump and Xi

We will provide a full take on this on Tuesday morning, as we work with the GIG to figure out what is likely the highest priority on both sides.

A few months ago, trade, rare earths, and critical minerals would have been high on that list. A few weeks ago, Iran and global energy had to be high on that list.

Now, cyber, AI, and compute have to be highest on the list.

At first blush, on most of these issues, the U.S. seems to need more from China than they need from the U.S. Never a great way to enter into a summit with China, but we will delve deeper on Tuesday.

Bottom Line

I’m running out of time in Vermont, and it might be nicer to spend it outside rather than at my laptop (and the Wi-Fi is spotty at best).

Diesel and the Middle East are key to rates.

For now, I think the path for energy prices (and stocks) and rates (globally) is higher. The news flow has not been positive this weekend, and it is difficult to see that changing quickly as Trump seems to be focused on dealing with Iran from a “stronger” position after the midterms (not stronger in terms of having the support of the House and the Senate, stronger because the perception that he has a deadline is gone).

For compute, Cheap Chinese Compute remains a concern.

It is difficult to get all “warm and fuzzy” about the outcome of this summit for markets. More choppiness seems to be the order of the day, with a bias to the downside for me on the compute spend story (though good for their credit spreads).

We get to bookend this week with a Monday morning appearance on CNBC and Friday morning on Bloomberg to analyze the results of the summit!

Should be another interesting week that we all have to navigate. Even with the Fed behind us, we will be paying attention to the data that may determine the next move for the Fed, but Iran, the Houthis, diesel, rates, and the summit are all going to move markets (hopefully in accordance with how we are recommending positioning).

Tyler Durden Sun, 09/20/2026 - 15:30

Grassley Urges Diesel Export Ban As Global Fuel Crisis Stokes Resource Nationalism Fears

Grassley Urges Diesel Export Ban As Global Fuel Crisis Stokes Resource Nationalism Fears

"With diesel at $6.57 in Iowa, why doesn't Pres. Trump put an embargo on diesel exports like presidents in the 70s put embargoes on ag products bc food prices were inflated," Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley wrote on X late Saturday night.

Grassley warned, "High diesel prices ARE KILLING FARMERS' INCOME."

Grassley is not wrong about the global refining crisis that is squeezing farmers and anyone else who uses the industrial fuel that powers the economy, from truck drivers and freight operators to businesses across virtually every industry. 

The risk now is that an economic shock could materialize if fuel costs stay elevated, with the latest AAA data showing the nationwide average diesel price set to cross $6.50 a gallon.

Chatter on Capitol Hill about a diesel export ban has increased, with Senate Majority Leader John Thune telling reporters last Tuesday that he is "open to exploring" the idea.

Any ban on refined petroleum product exports would escalate resource nationalism and could initially boost domestic availability and lower U.S. wholesale prices, particularly near export terminals. The problem is that domestic relief would be uneven because shifting barrels to the Northeast or West Coast would be difficult.

Barclays refining and midstream analyst Theresa Chen warned last week, "We continue to view the possibility of an export ban as both detrimental to the US refining complex and unlikely to provide the intended price relief."

The ban could weaken production incentives. If retained fuel overwhelms domestic storage and distribution capacity, weaker refinery margins could eventually encourage lower refinery runs.

On top of that, foreign buyers of the industrial fuel would need replacement cargoes, which could exacerbate the global shortage and accelerate resource nationalism as other governments tighten control over fuels. Those restrictions could also extend beyond energy products to critical materials.

Grassley’s call for an export ban faces resistance within the Trump administration. Interior Secretary Doug Burgum said last week that restricting oil or fuel exports would be unlikely to lower consumer prices and could provoke retaliation from trading partners.

The risk now, as Bloomberg Intelligence senior commodity strategist Mike McGlone warned last week, is that a diesel crisis could trigger an economic shock similar to what happened during the 2008 energy crisis.

Tyler Durden Sun, 09/20/2026 - 15:00

Stolen $586,000 Copper Shipment Found Hours Later At Kentucky Warehouse

Stolen $586,000 Copper Shipment Found Hours Later At Kentucky Warehouse

A load of copper worth nearly $600,000 was recovered on Sept. 11 after investigators followed a trail from Illinois to Kentucky and Ohio, wrapping up the initial search only about eight hours after the theft was reported, according to Yahoo News.

The case began when a shipment scheduled to travel from DeKalb, Illinois, to Rock Hill, South Carolina, never made it toward its intended destination. Authorities believe whoever collected the freight had presented themselves as an established trucking company, using genuine business information to make the pickup appear legitimate.

The breakthrough came from location data tied to Schneider National equipment involved in the haul. Rather than heading southeast toward South Carolina, the freight was traced to Prestonsburg, Kentucky, where police found the entire six-pallet copper shipment inside a warehouse. Three people were detained in Kentucky.

Photo: FreightWaves/Yahoo News

Meanwhile, investigators continued following the equipment used to move the load. A Schneider chassis and container were located in Chillicothe, Ohio, while state troopers separately intercepted the tractor associated with the pickup. One additional person was taken into custody in Ohio.

Yahoo reports that the operation involved authorities in Illinois, Kentucky and Ohio, along with Schneider National and CargoNet, which had helped flag the theft. Information about the truck, trailer and driver was quickly distributed among agencies as investigators attempted to follow the shipment across state lines.

Police are now examining whether the incident may overlap with another theft involving Schneider equipment and whether the people or trucking identities involved could be part of a wider cargo-theft operation. So far, authorities have not publicly identified the four people detained or disclosed what charges they may face.

The episode also illustrates how freight theft has evolved beyond simply stealing unattended cargo. Criminals can use authentic company information to appear legitimate long enough to take control of valuable shipments. In this instance, rapid reporting and tracking technology allowed investigators to locate both the cargo and much of the equipment before they could disappear further into the supply chain.

* * *

Tyler Durden Sun, 09/20/2026 - 14:00

Ocean Container Freight Costs Explode, Rivaling COVID-Era Crisis Highs

Ocean Container Freight Costs Explode, Rivaling COVID-Era Crisis Highs

A worsening ocean freight price shock is reviving concerns about the supply-chain disruptions seen during the pandemic and the 2024 Red Sea crisis.

If continued through the fall and winter, higher shipping costs could intensify inflationary pressure, squeeze corporate margins, and weaken growth. Together, these factors raise the risk of a broader economic shock, particularly if diesel prices remain elevated. 

Bank of America retail analyst Lorraine Hutchinson warned in a note Saturday that ocean freight rates have jumped 201%, approaching the 250% spike seen during the 2021 container ship shortage. Meanwhile, AAA national average diesel prices near $6.50 a gallon are crushing truckers' margins and boosting rates on the nation's highways. 

"Most contracts are set in the spring, but we're watching this for those using spot rates and as a potential headwind for 2027," Hutchinson said.

Beyond container rates, the Baltic Dry Index, which tracks freight rates for several vessel classes, including Capesize, Panamax and Supramax vessels, has jumped to December 2023 highs. 

"We see the current surge as something of a perfect storm, with vessel supply tightening and demand firing in both basins at the same time," Thurlestone Shipping analysts said.

A prolonged freight price shock could carry today's shipping squeeze into the 2027 contracting cycle, exposing businesses to higher transportation costs and increasing pressure to pass those costs on to consumers.

Tyler Durden Sun, 09/20/2026 - 13:00

FBI Using AI To Stop School Shootings; Doomers Want It Paused

FBI Using AI To Stop School Shootings; Doomers Want It Paused

Authored by Steve Watson via Modernity News,

While the same 'current thing' leftists who spent years on climate, oil and "Palestine" now chants that AI will wipe out the human race, FBI Director Kash Patel just announced that the agency is using the technology to actively prevent mass shootings, including school attacks, before they happen.

Patel said artificial intelligence helped the bureau prevent possible school shootings in North Carolina and about half a dozen other states, and that he has increased the FBI's use of AI by 605 percent.

That is the version of AI that the pause-and-treaty crowd does not want discussed.

The comments match what he told the Senate Judiciary Committee days earlier. When he took the job, the bureau had two test use cases for artificial intelligence. "We just hit our 140th, that's a 605 percent increase since I've been in this seat, to process information to triage intelligence, analyze, and get this information out to our local partners."

This is not a science-fiction sermon. It is tip triage.

Patel has been making the operational case since spring. On Sean Hannity's podcast he said the old FBI treated modernization as an afterthought.

"AI was never used at the FBI till we got there, literally crazy," he said. "I'm using it everywhere."

The bottleneck was volume. The National Threat Operations Center takes thousands of tips a week. "If we had just humans look at it, we would never sift through them all." He put the question more sharply still: "What's the point of collecting terabytes of data if you can't sift through it?"

The North Carolina case is the one he keeps returning to. "We stopped a school massacre in North Carolina because we got a tip and we were able to triage it with artificial intelligence." A separate New York school threat, he said, was disrupted after "a tip from our private-sector partners who are building out AI infrastructure."

In a Fox News op-ed he described the machinery. When a call hits NTOC, AI generates a transcript, drafts a summary of the threat, scans open cases for matches, and assigns a lead value so the hottest tips rise first.

"This specific threat intake process helped the FBI quickly act and stop an attacker plotting a mass shooting at a North Carolina preschool," Patel urged.

The same overhaul, he wrote, helped the bureau identify and locate 6,300 missing children last year - a 30 percent increase - and arrest 2,000 abusers, a 20 percent increase. In a Richmond case, facial recognition tools were used to pull 8- and 12-year-old children away from a would-be abuser now facing 50 years.

The tools are being used to rank leads and get them to agents and local partners before someone walks through a school door.

It's not something that has been considered by the doomer leftists now literally calling for AI to be 'switched off'.

San Francisco and London just got an NPC software update. The banners changed. The wardrobe did not.

Dozens marched from OpenAI's Mission Bay headquarters to Anthropic's offices and on to San Francisco City Hall, demanding Mayor Daniel Lurie declare a local "AI state of emergency." Chalk on the pavement read "Extinction is on the table."

Organiser Hunter Glenn told reporters, "I was pretty scared about the possibility of extinction for awhile." In London, "PauseAI" and "Pull The Plug" rallies formed after Anthropic alignment lead Evan Hubinger said he personally believed there was a greater than 10 percent chance AI could "kill all humans" within a decade. Their slogan: "10% chance of extinction? 100% chance of resistance."

Scott Jennings had already mapped the rotation. "It's always the same apocalyptic crowd moving from one issue to the next. Responsible guardrails are one thing, but handicapping American innovation while China speeds ahead with zero regulation isn't sound policy - it's just foolish."

Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang gave the extinction industry a simpler number. There is a "0% chance" the world ends in 2030. "2030 is not going to be the end of the world."

A U.S. pause would not freeze the technology. It would freeze the labs already winning and hand the century's defining stack to Beijing. Europe sold GDPR as virtue and now hosts none of the world's dominant labs.

Palantir co-founder Joe Lonsdale told Jesse Watters the scare is not civic caution. It is a campaign.

"These guys don't believe in God. They're atheists, but they've created something they believe is God," Watters said, laying out Lonsdale's point. "This is their Messiah, and this is their end of the world."

Lonsdale was direct. "There is a coordinated campaign to make the American people afraid." San Francisco, he said, dropped Christianity and still wanted a messiah and an apocalypse. "If you give up religion, you want some kind of messianic complex, some kind of big thing to believe in. These effective altruists - this is their Messiah, this is their end of the world, this is their obsession."

An industrial revolution is coming that would be "amazing for America if we get it right." The people trying to stop it, Lonsdale said, "hate America."

That theology now has a policy shop. Bill Gates is back on the emergency circuit calling AI an "alien intelligence."

"I don't think any government is nearly as deep on this as they have to be," he told Reuters. "Governments are way behind on this one." Then the Hollywood script: "There's all sorts of movies where some aliens are coming, and magically the US and China and everybody comes together to solve the problem. AI is kind of like this alien intelligence. It's here, and we better do like it shows in those movies."

On a podcast he went further. "It's not the role of the industry to self-regulate or understand the whole-of-society impact that comes out of AI." He wants a permanent cross-border watchdog stitched from nuclear inspections, aviation rules and ozone treaties - and a meeting with Xi Jinping. In the same news cycle his foundation pledged $1 billion over two years to spread AI through schools, clinics and farms. Alarm in one hand. Pipeline in the other.

President Trump has already rejected the slowdown. "We're leading China in AI," he said. "Whoever wins AI, wins." A lot of the horror stories being shopped around, he added, "won't happen."

Trump also answered the doomer circuit with an appointment, not a pause. He said he is forming an "AI Force," modeled on Space Force, and will name a high-IQ "AI Czar" to keep the United States first while the left's latest scare campaign is treated as what he called it: another hoax.

"AI is the next Industrial Revolution, or Internet, but will be even larger and more impactful, possibly as much as 25% of our Country's GDP," he said. "We are leading China, and the rest of the World, and I intend to keep it that way."

"We will not in any way hinder or stifle the Growth of this incredible Industry. Rather, we will cherish it, help it, and watch over it, as it grows," Trump added, noting that bad actors can be handled with the criminal and civil courts already on the books - not a Gates-style global leash.

One future is the FBI using models to transcribe a threat call, score it, match it, and get a cop to a North Carolina preschool before the shooting starts. The other is a global committee, a Netflix doom documentary sold as the new Inconvenient Truth, and a street mob that needs the next wipeout the way some people need a weather report.

China is not holding a pause-and-pray summit. Chinese firms have been accused by U.S. officials of stripping American models at industrial scale. Beijing's spy chief has treated AI as a Party-control problem, which is another way of saying the CCP wants the weapon.

Patel's point is narrower and harder to slogan away. Used by cops, under the law, the same class of tools the doomers want parked under an international inspectorate is already being used to find missing kids, rank tips, and stop school plots. Every plot that never makes a headline is a child who goes home.

America can build the thing, police the abuse, and keep the lead. Or it can let the extinction church write the rules while the bureau that just started using the tools is told to wait for permission from a committee Gates wants to staff.

* * *

Tyler Durden Sun, 09/20/2026 - 12:30

Big Oil Backs Mazama's $135 Million Bet On Superhot Geothermal

Big Oil Backs Mazama's $135 Million Bet On Superhot Geothermal

Mazama Energy announced $135 million in new capital with an oversubscribed Series B that included ConocoPhillips and Shell Ventures. With Devon Energy initially backing Fervo in 2023, a pattern is emerging with oil and gas veterans placing their bets in the geothermal industry. 

Some of the techniques developed by the O&G industry are translating well to geothermal projects. Horizontal drilling, well completions, and underground reservoir expertise are finding new purpose in an industry that is far more politically neutral than the fossil fuel industry ever could be.

Geothermal very well could be one of the AI-powered trades that is yet to be fully discovered. The Trump administration has thrown its full support behind the technology, as it holds some of the best qualities of nuclear energy without the [unfounded] radiation concerns.

Traditional geothermal, such as the established technology used by companies like Ormat, taps naturally occurring reservoirs of hot water and steam, making these sites very dependent on specific geology. The newer technology being utilized by companies like Fervo and Mazama engineers underground pathways to allow for injected water to circulate through hot rock and force the heat back to the surface. 

Mazama wants to push those techniques into much hotter rock. The company says its Oregon project demonstrated an engineered geothermal system at 629°F in 2025. Its second well, Athena, reached 10,350 feet in 15 drilling days this month, roughly 80% faster than the earlier well, and is drilling deeper toward 750°F.

The company highlights the benefits of the higher temperatures in their press release from the capital raise:

"Reaching 750°F (400°C) delivers up to 10 times the power of a conventional 390°F (200°C) well, owing to the much higher energy density of supercritical water and improved reservoir productivity. This allows Mazama to deliver projects using 75% less water and drilling 80% fewer wells than conventional geothermal developments."

According to Mazama’s announcement, the financing will support the DOE-backed Project Ceres, targeting 15 MW of electrical capacity per well and a power-generation demonstration in 2027.

Tyler Durden Sun, 09/20/2026 - 12:00

The Fed Rate-Hike Won't Fix The Inflation It Targets

The Fed Rate-Hike Won't Fix The Inflation It Targets

Authored by Lance Roberts via RealInvestmentAdvice.com,

The Fed did what the bond market dared it to do. This past week, in a unanimous vote, the FOMC raised the target range for the federal funds rate by 25 basis points to 3.75%-4.00%, the first Fed rate hike since 2023. The stated reason was “price stability.” Yet this is a Fed whose own chairman has spent the past year insisting that real growth does not cause inflation, and that the drivers of this one sit largely outside the central bank’s reach. As we argued in prior Bull Bear Reports on the debt-and-inflation problem, that tension is not a footnote; it is the entire story of the Fed rate hike, and something worth exploring more deeply.

Make no mistake, it was the bond market that forced the issue. Such is interesting when you consider that Kevin Warsh wants the market to create the signal. Well, he got what he wished for. The 10-year Treasury yield pushed to roughly 5.01% around Wednesday’s decision, a level not seen in 19 years, while the 30-year cleared 5.35%. In other words, the market’s message was clear: “Raise rates, or we will.”

What The Fed Rate Hike Actually Does

However, what gets lost in transmission is what the Fed is actually trying to achieve through interest rate policy. The mechanism behind rate hikes or cuts is a demand story, nothing more. Raising the policy rate raises the cost of money across the system. Credit-financed demand cools first, mortgages, auto loans, capex, anything that lives or dies on the cost of borrowing. As that demand softens, the economy loses some of its power to bid prices higher, and the pace of increase eases. “Price stability,” in the Fed’s own framing, is really “expectations” stability.

Now, notice what the Fed’s tool never touches, and this was mentioned by Warsh on Wednesday. A higher Fed funds rate does not drill a well, end a war, or reopen the Strait of Hormuz. The Fed rate hike works on one side of the ledger, and one side only: the demand side. Such is the design, and such is also the limit. When the inflation in front of you is a supply problem, a demand lever pulls on the wrong rope.

What Warsh Means By “The Fed Can’t Fix Prices”

However, this is where most of the mainstream commentary gets sloppy. The Warsh school separates two things that the word “inflation” quietly blends together.

  1. There are relative prices, set in the real economy by supply and demand for actual goods, and then
  2. There is the monetary unit, the purchasing power of the dollar itself.

An iPhone gets cheaper because of globalized production. Oil prices rise because of a war that threatens supply lines. No policy rate produces either outcome.

When Warsh implies the Fed cannot fix prices, the defensible version of that claim is narrow and correct. Monetary policy cannot repair a supply-driven, relative-price shock. It can only compress demand until something breaks. Milton Friedman’s line, that inflation is “always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon,” is usually quoted, incorrectly, to argue the opposite. However, read that carefully, because it makes Warsh’s point. Friedman described the slow erosion of the currency over the years (driven by a general rise in inflation amid economic growth), not the price of gasoline during a Gulf conflict. The Fed owns the monetary unit, but does not own the oil market.

Look at the composition of the number the Fed is fighting.

Headline ran 3.4% in August, but energy alone ran 16.9%. Strip the war out, and the overheating story gets much harder to tell. That is not a demand economy running too hot. That is a supply line on fire.

Then Why Hike Into A Supply Shock?

Fair objection. If the Fed cannot produce a barrel of oil, the Fed rate hike looks like “theater.” It is not, and the reason is CREDIBILITY. A central bank tightens into a supply shock for three defensible reasons, none of which involve lowering the price of crude.

  1. To keep inflation “expectations” anchored, so a one-off energy spike does not get built into wages and contracts and turn into the self-sustaining spiral of the 1970s.
  2. To protect the institution’s word after the “transitory” humiliation of 2021, when the Fed looked through a shock and watched it metastasize.
  3. Because the cost of being wrong twice dwarfs the cost of over-tightening once.

The dot plot shows the committee has made that trade. Sixteen of eighteen officials now see the possibility of at least one more hike this year, and four pencil in two.

“Inflation remains elevated. Today’s policy action will support a timelier return to the Committee’s 2 percent goal.” – FOMC statement, September 16, 2026

Read that quote once again. The committee expressly said that it can steer prices with rates. However, history tells us more precisely that the Fed can reliably steer demand only. Those are not the same claim. Fighting a supply shock with a demand tool is the textbook recipe for stagflation, slower growth, and higher unemployment without curing the thing that lit the fire. Such is the box Warsh is in, the same Volcker-versus-Burns dilemma, now his to own.

Here is a clearer way to see the potential danger that Warsh is walking into. The same dot plot that pins the neutral rate at 3.1% now has the funds rate at 3.875% and climbing toward a 4.1% median by year-end. Once you strip away the language, the Fed is already about 90 basis points into restrictive territory, with more to come, even as Warsh insists conditions are not “broadly restrictive.”

That setup leaves the Fed with absolutely no margin for error. In the current environment, the Fed is hiking rates to offset an oil price spike. If energy costs continue to weigh on growth and the Fed continues to tighten, it will accelerate the deterioration. If oil reverses, the inflation impulse fades quickly, and the Fed’s hikes accelerate the economic bite. Both roads end at the same address, a Fed caught in a policy mistake, scrambling to fix the overshoot.

What Usually Happens To Stocks After A Hike, And Why This Time Is Different

The bulls have a comforting statistic ready for this week, and it is a real one. Going back to the late 1980s, the S&P 500 has slipped only modestly immediately after a first Fed rate hike, roughly 2% over the first three months, then recovered to average gains of nearly 9% over the following year, according to Goldman Sachs. LPL Financial puts the average 12-month gain at 6.7%, with a median of 10.7%. The tidy conclusion is that rate hikes are buying opportunities.

However, as is always the case, beware of “averages,” which in this case may well be lying to you. The reason I say that is due to the composition. The Fed almost always hikes into a strong, demand-driven expansion. It rarely hikes into a supply shock. When it has, the record is far uglier, and the damage tends to arrive late, once the energy spike feeds inflation and the tightening starts to bite.

After the 1973 oil embargo, the S&P fell 11% in a month and 41% over the next year. Another, more recent example, was when the Fed tightened amid the energy-and-inflation shock of 2022. During that period, the index lost roughly 19% for the year and remained underwater well past 12 months. Every “hikes are bullish” study carves 2022 out as the exception. Today, it is most likely not the exception, but the template.

One thing that matters is the pace of the Fed rate hikes. Charles Schwab’s strategists found that the S&P returned 10.5% over the year following slow tightening cycles and lost 3.6% after rapid ones. So what should you actually expect over the next year, hiking into a war-driven supply shock with the 10-year near 5%? Our read sits below. It is a judgment anchored in that history, not a backtest.

In the current market, the leadership is not subtle. When the Fed hikes amid an energy shock, money tends to flow to where inflation is a benefit rather than a hindrance. For example, in 2022, as shown below, energy led the market up by about 48%. This suggests that investors, today, like then, should favor energy, materials, and defensives with real pricing power, as well as staples and health care. On the other side, underweight long-duration assets such as technology and communication services, as well as rate-sensitive discretionary and real estate names. However, there is always a caveat. If oil breaks and the shock fades, that map inverts, and today’s laggards lead the way back.

Such is the danger of leaning on a historical average built almost entirely on the wrong kind of hike.

What This Means For Markets Over The Next Few Months, And How To Navigate It

So how do you navigate it? Rates are “higher for longer,” and the committee has told you plainly it is willing to go again. The 30-year above 5.35% and the 10-year near 5.01% raise the bar that every equity, especially long-duration growth, has to clear to justify its multiple.

The forecasters are already marking that reality. Ed Yardeni cut his year-end S&P 500 target to 7,900 from 8,400 on the decision, flagging the risk of a downturn over the next three to six months as yields climb on energy. We would take the warning seriously without treating it as gospel.

Let’s focus on the bond market, which is the harder call right now, and the argument cuts both ways.

The bull case is a good one.

“The term premium has expanded to levels that historically pay investors to own duration, and a hike that slows the economy is the classic tailwind for long Treasuries. If Warsh restores “credibility” and growth cools, the long end rallies, and this past week’s high yields will look like a gift.”

The bear case, however, also has teeth.

“The 30-year sits at a 19-year high for a reason: relentless issuance against a $40 trillion debt, layered on top of supply-driven inflation. Rate hikes can not fix that. That tail does not disappear either just because the Fed moved a quarter point. So, this argues that investors should take exposure at the point where the term premium is best paid for the risk. That is in the belly of the curve, with 5-7 year durations.”

Crucially, none of this argues for abandoning equities. It argues for respecting a market regime in which the risk-free rate finally competes with everything else. It is an environment where the biggest driver of “price stability,” the Fed cited, is a war it can’t control. The deeper problem lies one level down. The deficits and debt that we repeatedly flagged are the real long-run engine of price stability. Monetary policy sits downstream of all of it.

The Fed can raise the price of money. It cannot lower the price of a war. Size the portfolio for the difference.

Tyler Durden Sun, 09/20/2026 - 11:30

Bessent And He Lifeng Open High-Stakes Trade Talks Ahead Of Trump-Xi Summit

Bessent And He Lifeng Open High-Stakes Trade Talks Ahead Of Trump-Xi Summit

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer are meeting Chinese Vice Premier He Lifeng at JPMorgan Chase's Manhattan headquarters on Sunday for a critical round of trade negotiations. The all-day session marks the final ministerial push before President Donald Trump hosts Chinese President Xi Jinping in Washington beginning September 24.

JPMorgan is not involved in the negotiations, though Bessent previously invited CEO Jamie Dimon to speak at a Treasury-hosted G20 finance leaders meeting in Asheville.

This negotiating channel previously engineered the Busan truce, which capped bilateral duties near 20 percent after reciprocal tariffs spiked into triple digits. The administration has since rebuilt its tariff structure under alternative statutes, while broader excess-capacity tariffs remain paused until after this week's summit. The existing truce expires on November 10, adding urgency for both sides.

The Core Negotiating Agenda

Three primary issues dominate the current talks, alongside geopolitical tensions over Taiwan and Iranian oil:

  • Rare Earths and Critical Minerals: Beijing committed in Busan to resume shipments of critical materials, but a senior U.S. official noted that China's performance has fallen short. Disruptions to these supplies significantly impact global manufacturing and technology. Beijing holds the leverage of offering more export licenses but has yet to restore pre-restriction volumes.
  • Artificial Intelligence: Negotiations will cover both open-weight and proprietary closed-weight AI models. Low-cost Chinese open-weight systems are increasingly adopted by U.S. developers, prompting Washington to push for bilateral guardrails against misuse by non-state actors while avoiding a complete bifurcation of the tech ecosystems.
  • Unresolved Trade Commitments: Negotiators are revisiting items left hanging from Trump's May visit to Beijing. This includes efforts to reduce tariffs on non-sensitive goods, finalize Chinese agricultural purchases, and address proposed U.S. tariffs linked to industrial overcapacity and forced-labor concerns.

Broader geopolitical issues continue to shadow the economic track. The conflict involving Iran and its impact on energy supplies has emerged as an unexpected major pressure point in the talks. Additionally, Washington continues to monitor the flow of fentanyl precursor chemicals from China, which will likely feature heavily in the main summit.

Expectations and Market Impact

The likelier outcome is diplomatic management rather than a major structural pact. Both administrations have a strong interest in avoiding a renewed escalation of trade tensions and preventing the Busan framework from falling apart before November.

Markets will look for any formal extension of the November 10 date, verified increases in magnet export permits, and whether agreements on AI guardrails contain binding terms.

Tyler Durden Sun, 09/20/2026 - 11:05

Good Intentions Paved The Road To The 2008 Financial Crisis

Good Intentions Paved The Road To The 2008 Financial Crisis

Authored by Paul Mueller via The Daily Economy,

This week marks the eighteenth anniversary of the failure of Lehman Brothers, a key event of the 2008 global financial crisis (GFC). Lehman's failure and the GFC more broadly were dramatic economic events. Lehman Brothers was the largest bankruptcy in US history to date. The global financial crisis gave rise to the Great Recession. The stock market fell by more than 50 percent, the economy contracted by 4.3 percent, unemployment rose from 4.7 percent to 10 percent, and the subsequent decade of US economic growth was abnormally anemic.

Many myths about Lehman's failure and about the 2008 global financial crisis continue to dominate public discourse. Popular consensus still places the blame primarily on deregulation, Wall Street greed, and reckless financial engineering. And many anecdotes inform their perspective.

Mortgage fraud was common and egregious, especially in the final few years of the housing frenzy (2004-2007). No-doc loans, NINJA loans, and liar loans were far too common - and most people were not held accountable for their complicity. Accusations of fraud by large banks and credit rating agencies, though, were largely overstated. Other than a couple big mortgage lenders engaged in systemic fraud (Countrywide) or truly reckless lending (Golden West), most financial institutions operated on the right side of the law.

The real driver of the GFC was pervasive bad incentives created by years of misregulation. Consider, for example, the Federal Reserve's Recourse Rule. This regulated how much capital banks had to hold against different classes of assets, and strongly favored mortgage-backed securities (MBS). Not surprisingly, banks shifted their portfolios to hold more MBS - one of the major asset classes to blow up in 2008. Regulation created this herd-like behavior, leading to overconcentration in a certain asset and greater systemic fragility.

Simultaneously, more than a decade of regulatory pressure forced Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to lower their underwriting standards - a shift that soon infected the entire industry. The Community Reinvestment Act, federal agencies, and the Department of Housing and Urban Development all pushed for reduced mortgage underwriting standards. More people were able to buy a home - even if they couldn't afford it.

Peter Wallison and Edward Pinto document this regulatory transformation. Far from a market-driven "race to the bottom" by private lenders chasing short-term profit, housing regulators in the early 1990s viewed traditional underwriting standards as discriminatory barriers to homeownership. Using the 1992 Housing and Community Development Act, the Department of Housing and Urban Development mandated affordable-housing quotas for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - requiring them to allocate an ever-increasing share of their support to low- and moderate-income borrowers, starting at 30 percent in 1992 and climbing to 56 percent by 2008.

To achieve these goals, Fannie and Freddie systematically dismantled traditional underwriting guidelines. The conventional mortgage market consisted of 30-year fixed-rate loans requiring 20 percent down payments, fully documented borrower income, and high credit scores. These mortgages were remarkably stable and had very low levels of defaults.

But by the mid-2000s, this underwriting standard had been replaced by loans with less than 10 percent down payments, adjustable interest rates, and lower FICO requirements. As Pinto later argued in a report to the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, roughly 27 million US mortgages - half of the entire market in 2008 - were high-risk, non-traditional loans, with government-backed agencies holding or guaranteeing the vast majority of them.

The otherwise laudable goal of increasing access and affordability led to higher housing prices and degraded the quality of mortgage finance, which then made its way onto bank balance sheets. Misregulation didn't stop once the crisis began - the same instinct to override market signals with discretionary judgment, which had already reshaped underwriting standards for a decade, next reshaped the government's response to the panic itself.

Government interventions meant to "fix" the market made things worse. Lehman's failure was certainly a blow to the market, but not as much as some people make it out to be. The S&P finished fractionally higher the Friday after Lehman's failure than it had the Friday before - most of the stock market decline came weeks later in October following further government interventions.

Two previous government actions that made Lehman's bankruptcy more disruptive than it needed to be. In March 2008, government officials brokered a bailout for Bear Stearns. This created a moral hazard in which Lehman executives rejected acquisition bids from interested investors and delayed deleveraging their mortgage portfolios, likely in the expectation that they would receive a deal, too. Federal officials' last-minute attempt to rescue Lehman left the firm unprepared for its complex Chapter 11, resulting in a chaotic bankruptcy that destroyed wealth and froze counterparties worldwide.

Lehman's failure highlights the broader problem in 2008: discretionary and reactionary government actions meant to dampen the GFC unintentionally made it worse. They created uncertainty and panic. Consider how the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) required all major banks to take bailout money even if they didn't need it. Treasury Secretary Paulson didn't want investors and lenders to identify and dump the weakest banks.

Yet this badly misjudged the market. Most lenders and investors had a pretty good sense of which banks were in trouble already. Forcing healthy institutions to take TARP funds signaled that contagion was deeper and more systemic than feared, accelerating capital flight from the banking sector.

Government officials also created perverse incentives by bailing out some firms early while letting others fail. If there is one thing worse for markets than bad news, it is uncertainty. And the Bush administration created deep market paralysis with its inconsistent, and often panicked, interventions in financial markets in 2008. Ordinary Americans paid the price then and are still paying the price today, in the form of greater government distortions of financial markets.

The Federal Reserve still holds nearly $2 trillion of MBS, an asset class it bought, and continued to buy, due to the "emergency" 18 years ago. More problematic, though, is that the GFC shook people's confidence in markets and in a free economy. The drive for broader government assistance programs on both sides of the political aisle has been fomented in part by the calamity of the GFC. Subsequent asset bubbles fueled popular cynicism about cronyism in the financial system.

The institutional memory from 2008 was on display in 2020 and 2021, when both the Federal Reserve and two different administrations turned on spigots of government spending, lending, and economic stimulus - resulting in the elevated inflation we face today. Nearly a quarter of the dollar's value has vanished since 2019.

If there is one thing we should learn from the 2008 GFC, it is that discretionary government interventions tend to generate negative unintended consequences. Even more importantly, we should view calls for more regulation, whether of cryptocurrency, stablecoins, energy production, or data center construction, with a skeptical eye.

Individual rules that may seem to make sense on paper can create perverse incentives, especially when they come stacked on top of other regulations. Unintended regulatory synergies generate herd-like behavior. Precisely the opposite is required for the decentralized experimentation that drives economic resilience.

Tyler Durden Sun, 09/20/2026 - 10:30

Pages