SK Hynix Evacuates Thousands Of Workers At Chip Plant After Fire, Toxic Gas Leak

One week, unions are threatening labor action at memory giant Samsung. The next, SK Hynix suffers an industrial accident. Together, the events highlight just how fragile the global memory supply chain has become at a time when AI data center buildouts have already pushed memory chip supply into extraordinarily tight territory.

South Korea's main national wire service, Yonhap News Agency, reports that SK Hynix, the world's second-largest DRAM producer, evacuated about 3,600 workers from its Cheongju semiconductor factory in South Korea after a fire and toxic gas leak.

The fire erupted Monday mid-morning in a sixth-floor gas room connecting the M15 and M15X plants and was quickly extinguished by the factory's fire suppression system. Seven people were injured.

SK Hynix believes the incident may have originated from a gas pipeline, adding that production lines for critical memory chips were not impacted.

SK Hynix is one of the world's top three memory chip companies, alongside Samsung and Micron. It controlled about 32% of the DRAM market in 4Q25, behind Samsung at 36% but ahead of Micron at 22.4%, according to TrendForce data.

This means that if the industrial accident had been more severe, any real production disruption at SK Hynix could have sparked a surge in DRAM prices. In other words, SK Hynix is a bottleneck supplier for the AI trade.

Our report early last week added to optimism in the DRAM and NAND memory chip markets because there is new evidence that China is flooding the chip market.

The Amazon price-tracking website CamelCamelCamel shows that retail pricing for DDR5 64GB memory chips dropped from $925 to about $853 in late May. Prices were around $200 one year ago.

We first outlined that hoarded supplies would begin to hit the market in late March.

 

 

 

Tyler Durden Mon, 06/01/2026 - 07:20

Millions Of Americans Are Giving Up On Buying New Cars

A growing number of Americans can no longer afford to buy new vehicles. Since 2020, roughly one million potential buyers have exited the market, and industry forecasts suggest they are unlikely to return soon, according to Wall Street Journal. 

Although automakers initially expected sales to recover to pre-pandemic levels, persistent economic pressures have kept demand below earlier expectations.

Before COVID-19, U.S. new-vehicle sales typically reached around 17 million units annually. Today, most forecasts place demand closer to 16 million vehicles or less, with little chance of a full recovery in the near future. One major reason is cost: the average new vehicle now sells for nearly $50,000, and many models exceed $55,000. As entry-level options disappear, new cars have become increasingly out of reach for middle-income households.

The WSJ writes that automakers recognize that affordability has become a major obstacle. While some companies have announced plans to introduce less expensive models, substantial price reductions are not expected anytime soon. Rather than competing through discounts, manufacturers have concentrated on producing higher-margin vehicles such as pickups, SUVs, and premium trims.

The industry's approach changed during the pandemic, when supply shortages limited production but allowed companies to maintain strong profits through higher prices. That experience convinced many automakers that selling fewer vehicles can be more profitable than chasing volume through aggressive incentives. As a result, manufacturers have become more cautious about discounting and more focused on protecting profit margins.

Consumers who are priced out of the new-car market often look to used vehicles instead, but prices there have also risen significantly. Many households have responded by delaying purchases altogether and keeping their current vehicles longer. This trend has pushed the average age of cars and light trucks on U.S. roads to a record level of roughly 13 years.

At the same time, automakers face mounting expenses from tariffs, supply-chain challenges, and large investments in electric vehicle development. These costs further reduce the incentive to prioritize low-priced vehicles. Companies such as GM and Ford continue to emphasize trucks, SUVs, and other profitable models that generate stronger returns than compact economy cars.

Some manufacturers, including Stellantis, have pledged to expand their lineup of lower-cost vehicles in the coming years. Meanwhile, brands such as Toyota, Nissan, and Hyundai still offer some of the market's more affordable options, although they too have increasingly shifted toward SUVs and larger vehicles.

Industry analysts increasingly believe that annual U.S. vehicle sales may remain below the pre-pandemic norm for years to come. Returning to the 17-million-unit level would likely require a much larger supply of vehicles priced under $40,000. Until that happens, many consumers will continue postponing purchases and extending the life of the vehicles they already own.

Tyler Durden Mon, 06/01/2026 - 06:55

Welcome to June! Kick off your back-to-work with our expertly curated morning reads:

• The Lowest Consumer Sentiment EVER: We are currently sitting at the lowest level of consumer sentiment in the past 75 years!. Lower than the Great Financial Crisis when the stock market crashed almost 60%, the financial system nearly imploded and the unemployment rate reached more than 10%. Lower than the aftermath of the dot-com bubble bursting which included a 50% stock market crash, a recession and 9/11. Ben Carlson on the new Michigan low — historically a contrarian buy signal, but the gap between sentiment and spending has gotten weird. The chart and the caveat in one post. (A Wealth of Common Sense)

• The Chip Rally Is at $5.7 Trillion and Counting. How Much Further Can It Go?: WSJ on the semiconductor complex’s total market cap, the unit economics underneath, and the multiple expansion that has done most of the work. Sober the next time someone quotes “still early.” Surging demand for chip makers has lifted major indexes from their wartime malaise (Wall Street Journal) see also The Chip Rally Has Gone Parabolic. It’s Time to Separate the Pillars From the Pretenders. A furious rally has raised fears of a new bubble. If and when the party ends, five stocks will be left standing. They all remain undervalued. (Barron’s)

• Ford’s Stock Is Surging — and It’s Got Nothing to Do With Its Car Business: WSJ on why Ford Credit is now driving the equity story. The legacy automaker has become a financial-services company that happens to ship sheet metal. (Wall Street Journal)

• The 4% rule is now the 4.7% rule. That matters for your retirement. The 4% rule has drawn praise and pillory for years. Now, says its author, it’s time for a revisionto 4.7%. The revision illustrates both the strength and weakness of the original rule. (USA Today)

• Independent bookstores are multiplying, although many people still think they’re dying out: The Inquirer on the indie-bookstore comeback — romantasy demand, third-place economics, and what Amazon and the chains can’t quite replicate. The vibe shift has numbers behind it. The latest numbers from the American Booksellers Association show independent stores expanding at a pace not seen this century. (The Philadelphia Inquirer)

• You Won the Battle on Investment Fees. You’re Losing the War Against Taxes.: Jason Zweig on where the real frictions in long-horizon returns live now — not expense ratios, but capital-gains drag, turnover, and the bracket math no one models. Required reading. (Wall Street Journal)

• A Famous Math Problem Stumped Humans for 80 Years. AI Just Cracked It. The math world is losing its mind over the new solution to an Erdős problem. This is what AI found, how we missed it—and why it matters. WSJ on an OpenAI model knocking out an Erdős problem that had been open for eighty years. The “calculator for proofs” framing is starting to look closer to reality than to hype. (Wall Street Journal)

• This High Schooler Developed an A.I. Tool to Diagnose Autism and ADHD Using the Retina: Smithsonian on a high-school project that turned a fundus camera into a screening tool. The headline is cute; the underlying methodology is not. (Smithsonian Magazine)

• Three Ways Trump Is Losing the War: At the moment, the United States is negotiating with a regime that President Trump claimed we had already changed, to open a strait that was supposed to be open last month, and to end a nuclear program that we said we had obliterated. NYT opinion on the three distinct fronts where the Iran campaign has gone sideways — operational, diplomatic, domestic. Cleaner taxonomy than most of the cable coverage. (New York Times) see also Why Trump Keeps Getting Rolled in Negotiations: The Atlantic on the pattern: Trump opens hot, the counterparty waits him out, and the climbdown gets framed as a deal. Iran is just the latest specimen. (The Atlantic)

• When Fame Comes Very, Very Late: Bob Graboyes on the people who hit their stride after sixty — composers, novelists, scientists. A reasonable antidote to the 30-under-30 ecosystem. (Bastiat’s Window)

Video of the day: Why Aldi is destroying traditional grocery stores.

 

Grok is the most sycophantic AI model

Source: Center for AI Safety via Paul Kedrosky

 

Be sure to check out our special Masters in Business this week, Remembering Jonathan Clements with Bill Bernstein and Jason Zweig. The two recall Clements’ impact on the investor community; they discuss his posthumous book, “Money and Me.”

 

Sign up for our reads-only mailing list here.

 

The post 10 Monday AM Reads appeared first on The Big Picture.

The Road To Hell Is Being Paved With Suicidal Empathy

Authored by Bronwyn Eyre via The Epoch Times,

In his book-cover endorsement of “Suicidal Empathy: Dying to Be Kind,” author Bruce Bawer calls it “easily more important than any book in recent memory.” Elon Musk adds: “Western civilization is doomed unless the core weakness of suicidal empathy is recognized and actions are taken.”

They’re right. Professor Gad Saad’s newest book will jar your mindset and leave you with a degree of shock. You’ll want to tell others about it, and it will be a bestseller (in fact, it already is).

The book cover’s sketched lamb holding a sign reading “FREE THE WOLVES” delivers the book’s thesis in a nutshell—that the madness of misplaced empathy toward alien entities, cultures, and religions is suicidal. And the Western world—or at least a critical mass of its cultural and political influencers—is sold on the idea.

The book is freighted with stunning examples of lunatic policies that prioritize marginalized groups over cherished time-tested Judeo-Christian tenets, customs, and practices. In his chapter “Cultural Theory of Mind,” for instance, Saad discusses how both the British police and government declined “over several decades” to intervene in the “organized sexual exploitation of young white girls by ‘Asian’ grooming gangs across countless cities on an industrial-scale level … lest they might be accused of bigotry or, worse, Islamophobia.”

Some instances of suicidal empathy occur where you’d least suspect it. Traditionally, for example, merit and scientific aptitude have comprised the hallmark for entrance into medicine. But according to Saad, CanMEDS (which develops professional codes for physicians and surgeons in Canada) has devised a new model that “would seek to centre values such as anti-oppression, anti-racism, and social justice, rather than medical expertise.”

He then provides a 150-word statement elaborating on CanMEDS’ 2025 renewal guidelines—ones that address “ongoing structures of racism, white supremacy, settler colonialism, heteropatriarchy, capitalism, ableism, classism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, and more.”

Suicidal empathy—a Saad coinage, by the way—has become well-implanted in Canadian universities.

The University of Waterloo’s Cheriton School of Computer Science recently advertised for two positions—one in AI, the second in computer science. Position one “is open only to qualified individuals who self-identify as woman, transgender, gender-fluid, non-binary, or Two-spirit” while position two “is open only to qualified individuals who self-identify as a member of a racialized minority.”

Not to be outdone, the University of British Columbia recently advertised for a chair in oral cancer research. “The selection,” read the ad, “will be restricted to members of the following federally-designated groups: people with disabilities, Indigenous people, radicalized people, women, and people from minoritized gender identity groups.”

So that’s how the empathy cookie crumbles these days. Illegal immigrants are welcomed by the hundreds of thousands and often more accommodated than tax-paying citizens. Hamas terrorists are noble; Israel’s IDF “genocidal.” Squatters are prioritized over residents. Twerking drag queens entertain kindergartners during reading hour. Foreign aid is sluiced out with no strings attached. The “unhoused” occupy and despoil public parks. Free needles are handed out with little expectation they’ll be returned. Medical and fire department personnel are burned out by the coddling of street addicts.

Saad notes an academic movement that actually seeks to change the term “pedophile” to “minor-attracted people” (MAPS). In one of its papers entitled “Humanizing Pedophilia as Stigma Reduction,” the abstract begins: “The stigmatization of people with pedophilic sexual interests is a topic of growing academic and professional consideration, owing to its potential role in moderating pedophiles’ emotional well-being. Thus, reducing stigmatization toward this group is of paramount importance.”

My favourite example of suicidal empathy? That’s a tough one, but I’ll go with the government grant awarded to researchers at Concordia University to de-colonize light. On their “Decolonizing Light” website, the researchers explain that the “website explores ways and approaches to decolonize science, such as revitalizing and restoring Indigenous knowledges, and capacity building. The project aims to develop a culture of critical reflection and investigation of the relation of science and colonialism.”

It’s somewhat reassuring that the phenomenon of suicidal empathy has existed, in some form, for centuries. Saad cites two Aesop’s Fables—in one case, a kindly farmer takes a freezing viper into his warm coat pocket but is fatally bitten when the viper warms. In another, a scorpion convinces a frog to carry him across the river on his back then fatally stings the frog, because it’s in his nature to do so.

How proud one could feel if our political leaders were wise to the folly of misplaced empathy. But as Saad puts it: “Two former Canadian prime ministers, Pierre Elliott Trudeau and his son Justin Trudeau, are perfect exemplars of Western political leaders who have destroyed their nation’s cultural fabric via their empathetic commitment to cultural relativism.”

That might explain why, in 2017, Justin Trudeau authorized a $10.5 million payout to Omar Khadr for Canada’s alleged complicity with the United States in the violation of Khadr’s constitutional rights at Guantanamo Bay. He had killed an American soldier in the Afghan war and spent years in that prison, but was eventually handed over to Canadian authorities.

Saad, who fled the Lebanese civil war with his Jewish parents (who had earlier been kidnapped and ill-treated by the Palestine Liberation Organization), settled in Montreal and was taken on by Concordia University in 1994 as a marketing professor. He now terms himself an “evolutionary behavioural scientist.” He recently revealed on the Joe Rogan podcast that, amid repeated death threats, he’s leaving Canada to live in the United States.

Saad told the National Post: “I love Canada, but there comes a point where the abject antipathy that you experience from Canadian society forces you to look elsewhere to a place where you might be appreciated and allowed to flourish.” He’s now a scholar at the Center for the Study of American Freedom at the University of Mississippi.

A while back, I reviewed Piers Morgan’s latest book “Woke Is Dead” and wrote that it “might go a long way toward straightening out an age—as his subtitle states—‘of total madness’ for all of us.” Perhaps more than I realized at the time, Morgan’s optimism may involve too much wishful thinking. For, alas, Saad’s ominous outlook trumps Morgan’s auspicious one. Morgan himself revealed doubts in saying, for example, that “we must keep pounding” against wokeism and “woke is dead ... but we’re not totally in the clear.”

Saad tells how, in March of 2024, he posted some thoughts on his X feed regarding the “suicidal empathy” he felt is sending the West “into a death spiral.” He received an email from the publisher of Broadside Books with a link to the post and the comment, “Here’s your book idea.”

That idea is in sync with previous thinkers and writers. Arnold Toynbee argued that societies collapse when they fail to intelligently respond to new challenges. Thomas Sowell believed that the intelligentsia often espouse policies that make them feel virtuously compassionate, while being decoupled from the negative consequences of said policies. James Burnham, in his “Suicide of the West“ (1964), wrote that “suicide is probably more frequent than murder as the end phase of a civilization.”

So Saad is in good company in holding that the “West’s elitist progressive political class is infected by a mind parasite that causes its empathy module to misfire in every conceivable manner. Many of the policy decisions that are wreaking havoc in the West stem from this poor calibration of empathy, resulting in a society that is galloping toward the abyss of infinite lunacy.”

Hon. Bronwyn Eyre, LLB, is a Senior Fellow with the Aristotle Foundation for Public Policy and Saskatchewan’s former Minister of Justice, Attorney General, and Minister of Energy.

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times or ZeroHedge.

Tyler Durden Mon, 06/01/2026 - 06:30

US Adult Cigarette Smoking Rate Hits Another All-Time Low

Via Headline USA,

The cigarette smoking rate among U.S. adults dropped to another all-time low last year, with 1 in 11 adults saying they were current smokers, according to government survey data released this week.

Cigarette smoking is a risk factor for lung cancer, heart disease and stroke, and it’s long been considered the leading cause of preventable death.

The preliminary findings from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention were based on survey responses from more than 24,200 adults. In the survey, CDC officials defined current cigarette smoking as smoking at least 100 cigarettes in a lifetime and now smoking every day or some days.

In the mid-1960s, 42% of U.S. adults were smokers. The rate has been gradually dropping for decades, due to cigarette taxes, tobacco product price hikes, smoking bans, public education campaigns and changes in the social acceptability of lighting up in public.

In 2024, the percentage of current adult smokers fell below 10% for the first time. Last year, it was 9%, according to the new survey.

The use of electronic cigarettes has been inching up among adults, but has held about steady in 2025, at about 7%.

“The continued decline in smoking is a monumental public health achievement that has saved millions of lives and billions in healthcare costs,” said Yolonda Richardson, president and chief executive of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, a Washington, D.C.-based advocacy and research organization.

Richardson said current smoking-prevention efforts have been set back by cuts President Donald Trump’s administration made that eliminated the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Office on Smoking and Health and its “Tips from Former Smokers” advertising campaign.

She cited estimates that the “Tips” campaign alone helped more than 1 million Americans quit smoking and saved over $7.3 billion in healthcare costs.

“This critical work must be restored and sustained to continue reducing smoking-related disease, death and healthcare costs nationwide,” Richardson said.

Tyler Durden Mon, 06/01/2026 - 05:45

German School Forces Teens To Design 'Inclusive Brothel'

Authored by Steve Watson via Modernity.news,

Parents across Germany are in uproar after a Catholic high school handed 13- to 15-year-olds the grotesque task of modernizing a brothel to make it “sexually inclusive” for every lifestyle and preference under the sun.

The assignment at Cardinal von Galen Gymnasium in Kevelaer, North Rhine-Westphalia, formed part of a “Sexual Education of Diversity” module. 

Students were told to simulate running an existing brothel in a big city, with a fixed floor plan they could only tweak by adding doors and staircases. 

Insane pic.twitter.com/hFYy379mQV

— Basil the Great (@BasilTheGreat) May 29, 2026

They had to detail which sexual preferences the spaces must cater to, what “services” to offer, target groups, advertising, and crucially “what skills and abilities” the workers would need “so that all kinds of people could be served and satisfied.”

In what world is it OK to ask children to do this?

The workbook, titled “Puff für alle” – slang for “Brothel for All” – framed the exercise as responding to “developments in our society with a diversity of lifestyles and gender roles.”

Headmistress Christina Diehr defended the material to WDR, stating it was “deliberately designed to be provocative in order to stimulate discussion.” 

She added that it “addresses the heavy use of social media channels by children and young people and the associated flood of information about various forms of sexuality.”

After the worksheets leaked and sparked widespread fury on social media, the school held what it called “constructive” talks with parents, the teacher, and the class parents’ committee. 

Officials confirmed they will not re-issue the assignment and are now preparing alternative lessons on “diversity of lifestyles and sexuality.”

One older student pushed back sharply in comments to WDR: “People should be questioning the acceptance surrounding the topic of sex work… 95 percent of all sex workers being women, and a significant number of them being girls, I believe it’s inappropriate to address brothels in sex education and, above all, to fail to differentiate and explore the topic in an assignment.”

This sanitized, taxpayer-funded fantasy of “inclusive” prostitution arrives at the exact moment German schools and kindergartens are reeling from real-world sexual horrors inflicted by migrants who never should have been let near children.

As we previously highlighted, an 18-year-old Afghan asylum seeker intern at Brehm School in Düsseldorf allegedly dropped his trousers and exposed his erect penis to two second-grade girls while a teacher was present in the room. 

He had also groped the class teacher’s buttocks days before. The intern admitted the groping to police. The school only banned him after the girls’ parents raised the alarm themselves, and authorities noted schools often try to “keep a low profile” on such crimes.

In a separate case, a 35-year-old Syrian intern molested two four-year-olds in a Neubrandenburg kindergarten – touching a sleeping girl’s genitals and buttocks with sexual intent, then assaulting a boy who reported it to his parents. Kindergarten staff initially handled the first incident internally without calling police.

German schools are descending into chaos precisely because of mass migration. One report detailed entire institutions “dealing with hell” from violence, language barriers, and cultural clashes driven by unchecked inflows. 

Another school required permanent police guards after 118 crimes in a single year, including knife attacks and threats. 

Parents have pulled kids from daycare out of fear of neighboring asylum centers, while in some towns planned kindergartens were quietly converted into asylum housing instead.

Globalist policies have flooded communities with unvetted individuals from incompatible cultures while authorities sexualize and confuse native children with literal brothel-planning homework. 

Innocence is stripped on two fronts: ideological grooming in the curriculum and physical predation enabled by open borders.

Germany’s leaders have chosen experiments in “diversity” over the basic duty to protect the young. The result is traumatized kids, furious parents, and a system that lectures about inclusion while failing to deliver safety.

This cannot continue. Only nations that secure their borders, prioritize their own citizens, and reject both woke indoctrination and demographic replacement will spare their children this nightmare.

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

Tyler Durden Mon, 06/01/2026 - 05:00

How The FIFA World Cup Affects Short-Term Rental Markets

For international football fans traveling to North America to attend the FIFA World Cup this summer, the costs of doing so quickly add up.

As Statista's Felix Richter details below, between flights, accommodation, food, local transportation and tickets, a week-long trip to the tournament can easily set you back a couple of thousand dollars, which is why FIFA and local businesses in the United States have been accused of price gouging in the run-up to the multi-week event.

Fans put off by sky-high hotel prices in host cities may look elsewhere for cheaper accommodation, but the short-term rental market, i.e. Airbnb and similar platforms, is also heating up in anticipation of the World Cup and millions of international visitors. According to AirDNA, an analytics platform for the short-term rental industry, demand for short-term rentals has surged in many host cities, with Guadalajara, Mexico City and Monterrey seeing particularly large spikes in bookings and nightly rates.

You will find more infographics at Statista

On group stage matchdays, the number of bookings in the three Mexican host cities rose by an average of 186 percent compared to the previous year, while the average nightly rate increased by 72 percent year-over-year.

Host cities in the U.S. and Canada have seen significantly smaller increases in demand and prices, indicating that baseline demand in these cities is higher compared to their Mexican counterparts.

For those still looking for accommodation, however, the report brings mixed news.

On the one hand, the average price increase for listings that were still available as of May 28 was roughly twice as high as the increase for bookings that had already been made.

On the other hand, with vacancy rates indicating that there are still plenty of options on the market and hoteliers reporting that demand has fallen short of expectations, last-minute bookers may still benefit from falling prices in the days leading up to the World Cup kickoff on June 11.

Tyler Durden Mon, 06/01/2026 - 04:15

65,000 Small German Retail Stores Have Disappeared As Economic Downturn Hits Europe's 'Powerhouse'

Via Remix News,

The number of small retail stores in Germany has declined drastically since 2010. According to a recent analysis by the credit agency Creditreform and the Handelsblatt Research Institute, there were 236,143 small retail stores with annual sales of less than €250,000 in 2010. For 2025, the sales tax statistics show only 170,770 such stores, a drop of 28 percent, reports Junge Freiheit.

Across all size categories, the number of stores shrank by only 16 percent during the same period, meaning the smaller, owner-operated players are being hit far harder. Small and medium-sized enterprises have been left with barely any financial reserves, a bad sign for the country’s battle with continuous bankruptcies.

According to the report, just over 316,000 retail stores overall remain. The German Retail Federation (HDE) warns that the number of stores could drop below 300,000 in 2026, threatening the vitality of city centers.

“The retail sector is among the fastest-shrinking sectors of the German economy,” Creditreform states in its report, with specialty stores in city centers, on side streets, and in shopping malls affected the most. Creditreform economist Patrik-Ludwig Hantzsch points to a combination of factors: inflation, consumer weakness, rising operating costs, and increasing competitive pressure.

In 2025, 2,440 retailers went bankrupt — a 9 percent increase increase over 2024— with fashion stores, bookstores, and bakeries particularly affected.

HDE President Alexander von Preen argues that politicians should lower energy costs and payroll taxes, while landlords should adopt more flexible, revenue-based rents to reduce vacancies.

Research from the Institute for Retail Research in Cologne shows that empty storefronts damage city centers by discouraging visitors, weakening city image, reducing foot traffic, and causing financial losses for municipalities and nearby businesses.

At the same time, non-food discount chains such as Action, Tedi, Hema, Woolworth, and Thomas Philipps are gaining market share in household goods, toys, stationery, and other categories. An IfH survey found that 85 percent of Germans have shopped at such stores in the past two years.

Creditreform says cities and retailers must adapt.

Traditional shopping-focused city centers are no longer effective in many areas, so cities should better combine shopping, leisure, dining, and living spaces. Small retailers are encouraged to focus on specialization, customer service, digital presence, and unique shopping experiences to remain competitive.

But with these changes, much of the identity of cities may be threatened.

“With the decline of smaller specialist retailers, many city centers are losing their distinctiveness and thus their heart,” says HDE CEO Stefan Genth.

With Germany battling an overburdened social system, surging federal deficit, soaring energy prices, and a massive spike in crime and costs due to migration, the choice of retailers in city centers may be the least of its problems. And yet, this barometer pays testament to all the rest.

Read more here...

Tyler Durden Mon, 06/01/2026 - 03:30

Trump Toughens Terms Of Iran Deal Framework, As Bessent Pinpoints Tehran's 'Big Mistake' Summary

• NYT on Sunday: President Trump has toughened the terms of a potential framework for a deal to end the war in Iran.
• Washington seeks to ratchet pressure, but Tehran still not budging on issue of remaining nuclear material.
• Bessent describes the "big mistake" Iran made to Fox - attacking its neighbors & losing friends; also says of the Iranians "they're going to have to start taking down the wells."
• Israeli PM Netanyahu says he has "instructed the Israeli military to expand the maneuver in Lebanon" after the occupation of the strategic Beaufort Castle, which he says marks "a dramatic change" in Israel’s operations.

//--> US x Iran permanent peace deal by June 30, 2026?
Yes 30% · No 70%
View full market & trade on Polymarket

*  *  *

Trump Toughens the Terms of Potential Deal

Fresh Sunday reporting in the NY Times says President Trump has responded to Iran's refusal to budge on giving up its nuclear material by tightening US conditions as part of a Memorandum of Understanding to get back to the peace negotiating table.

"President Donald Trump has toughened the terms of a potential framework for a deal to end the war in Iran, and has sent those proposed changes back to Iran for consideration, according to three officials," NY Times writes, but didn't disclose what the precise changes are.

The report then speculates on where these changes likely focus: "Trump has been concerned about parts of the potential deal that would include unfreezing funds for the Iranians, two officials said."

Iran's Tasnim:

If Trump proposes changes to the draft agreement, Iran will make its own revisions as well.

Nothing is finalized. Iran says it will only accept terms it agrees with and is also prepared for the possibility of no deal. pic.twitter.com/KzWnxlWG8G

— Clash Report (@clashreport) May 31, 2026

Citing frustration at the slow pace of Iran's response to the proposals, it adds, "He has been harshly critical of President Barack Obama for doing the same in the more than decade-old agreement that was signed to curtail Iran’s nuclear program."

Tightening the proposals is meant to ratchet up the pressure and 'force' the Islamic Republic to respond quicker and agree to a deal. However, the Iranians have time and again rejected being 'dictated to' by Washington, as its top negotiator Ghalibaf spelled out days ago.

Meanwhile there's been a recent change in tone when talking about Iran's military, from Trump himself:

"We’ve actually left their military alone — people would be surprised to hear that."

President Trump says Iran's military hasn't been hit as aggressively because it's "somewhat moderate" compared to other elements of the regime.

He argues that wiping out "everybody" could cause… pic.twitter.com/gG84lDSrlD

— Fox News (@FoxNews) May 31, 2026

Iran Still Not Budging on Nuclear File

This also comes after a two-hour Friday Situation Room meeting Friday wherein it became clear there was no deal yet to be finalized. According to more from the Times:

The official added that Trump’s changes — a new, tougher proposal — were potentially intended to speed up the process by putting pressure on Iran to accept the framework already sent to Iran’s supreme leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, for approval.

Reaching the supreme leader has been difficult, so any changes to the document, known as the memorandum of understanding, could mean additional delays.

But for pressure to work, there has to be signs Iranian leaders are getting nervous or desperate - and so far they've not urged Washington or Pakistani mediators for some kind of grand compromise. Instead they've repeatedly sworn that Iran's highly enriched uranium will never be transferred to the possession of the United States.

Iran Decries Constant False 'Speculation'

The Sunday latest from Iran's Foreign Ministry:

Iran’s Foreign Minister, Abbas Araghchi, says “dialogue and an exchange of messages are ongoing” with the United States amid stalled negotiations.

He told Iranian news agency IRNA that “it is not possible to judge until a clear conclusion is reached; everything that is being said now is speculation and should not be taken seriously until it is certain”.

Bessent: Iran's 'Big Mistake'

Still, US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent is busy on the Sunday news shows talking tough. He told Fox in a new interview that Iran made a "big mistake" by attacking its neighbors in the Persian Gulf, within the past week. A US base in Kuwait was also reportedly just attacked by a ballistic missile, which was reportedly intercepted - but falling debris injured five US personnel.

"We had many very good allies who maybe weren't completely transparent with us on the money — Iranian money that was in their banking systems — all of a sudden became very compliant in terms of being willing to turn over accounts or help us freeze block accounts," Bessent told Fox News.

"And then the third part was the incredible blockade. I really think it's the economic blockade of funds and the physical blockade of the ships not going in or out of the Iranian ports," he added. "Kharg Island is shut down. That's their big oil loading facilities, and that means that they're going to have to start taking down the wells," Bessent said. And yet, there's nothing officially disclosed to show this is actually happening - though the Iranians have no incentive to publicize it. But time will tell.

Bessent:

A big mistake that the Iranians made was attacking their GCC neighbors, their neighbors in the Gulf, because we had many very good allies who maybe weren't completely transparent with us on the money, Iranian money that was in their banking systems, all of a sudden… pic.twitter.com/trfonLETXI

— Clash Report (@clashreport) May 31, 2026

IDF Plunges Deep into Lebanon, Captures Crusader Castle

Some Lebanon war latest, via Al Jazeera, as ceasefire unravels:

• Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu says he has “instructed the Israeli military to expand the maneuver in Lebanon” after the occupation of the strategic Beaufort Castle, which he says marks “a dramatic change” in Israel’s operations.

• The Israeli military claims to have killed 900 Hezbollah “terrorists” since the start of the “ceasefire” on April 16. It added that the army had struck dozens of Hezbollah sites since this morning.

• Lebanese Prime Minister Nawaf Salam has accused Israel of pursuing a “scorched-earth policy” as Israeli forces expand their ground invasion.

Tyler Durden Mon, 06/01/2026 - 03:10

Monolithic 3D Silicon Chips Achieve Near-Perfect Yields At Low Temperatures

Authored by Neetika Walter via Interesting Engineering,

Researchers at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign have developed a way to stack high-performance silicon circuits directly on top of one another, a breakthrough that could help the semiconductor industry keep increasing computing power without shrinking transistors further.

The 200-mm wafer contains multiple silicon layers stacked for monolithic 3D chip integration.University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign

The approach tackles one of the biggest challenges facing chipmakers as Moore's law begins to slow. For decades, the industry boosted performance by making transistors smaller and packing more of them onto a chip. But as devices approach fundamental physical limits, further miniaturization is becoming increasingly difficult.

Instead of shrinking components, the Illinois team is building upward. By stacking multiple layers of silicon circuits, engineers can increase transistor density, reduce communication distances inside chips, and improve energy efficiency.

The researchers say their process could accelerate the development of monolithic three-dimensional chips, a long-sought technology that many experts see as the next step in semiconductor scaling.

Building Chips Upward

"Take something as simple as static random-access memory, which is universal in CPUs and GPUs. Today it takes six microelectronic devices called transistors on a single plane to store one bit of information. With vertical integration, you can distribute them across multiple layers. It's like replacing a sprawling suburb with high-rises: you get the same functionality, but the spatial footprint is reduced while making communication between layers faster and more efficient," said Qing Cao, associate professor of materials science and engineering.

While three-dimensional chip technologies already exist commercially, most rely on bonding together separately manufactured wafers. That approach creates relatively large connections between layers and limits how densely components can be integrated.

Monolithic three-dimensional integration takes a different route by building each circuit layer directly on top of the previous one. The method allows much denser vertical connections and more precise alignment between layers, potentially leading to faster and more efficient chips.

The challenge has been temperature. Manufacturing high-performance silicon devices typically requires temperatures approaching 1,000 degrees Celsius. However, once the first layer of circuits and metal wiring is completed, additional layers must remain below about 400 degrees Celsius to avoid damaging existing structures.

To overcome this barrier, the researchers developed a process that transfers ultrathin single-crystalline silicon nanomembranes onto completed circuit layers. The bonding process requires temperatures no higher than 200 degrees Celsius, staying well within the industry's thermal budget.

Beyond Moore's Limits

"Vertical integration is already starting to make its way into commercial devices, particularly in specialized AI hardware, but monolithic integration is what unlocks the full promise of 3D chips. For the first time, we have met the thermal budget of monolithic 3D integration using standard single-crystalline silicon and delivered unprecedented performance," Cao said.

The team also redesigned transistor fabrication to avoid high-temperature processing steps. Instead of conventional transistor structures, they used junctionless transistors that can be prepared before the stacking process begins.

Using the technique, the researchers built three stacked silicon layers containing 625 transistors each. The devices achieved yields between 98% and 100% while delivering performance comparable to standard silicon transistors fabricated at much higher temperatures.

The researchers also demonstrated three-dimensional logic circuits and static random-access memory cells by connecting the layers with vertical metal links.

"But most importantly, we've shown that this process is scalable," Cao said. "You can keep stacking layers beyond the three we demonstrated."

The researchers are now working to transfer the technology into an industrial semiconductor foundry with support from industry partners including IBM, Intel, and TSMC.

The study was published in the journal Nature.

Tyler Durden Sun, 05/31/2026 - 19:50

Israel Seizes Crusader Beaufort Castle, Marking Deepest Plunge Into Lebanon In Decades

Fresh Sunday reports say that Israel's military has made its deepest plunge into Lebanon in nearly three decades, having captured a strategic crusader castle site and UNESCO World Heritage Landmark, Beaufort castle.

It was last captured in 1982, when the IDF later pushed all the way north to occupy portions of Beirut. The army posted photographic proof via its Arabic spokesperson, Avichay Adraee, who issued an image on X showing Israeli troops walking outside the castle. An Israeli flag has also been raised over the stone fortress complex.

via IDF

The castile overlooks the Litani River, which Israeli forces have been pushing north of, and has stood for nearly 1,000 years - and was at various times used by Crusader knights, Saladin’s Jerusalem army, the Mamlukes, and Ottomans. In the 1980s, fighters from the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) even occupied it for a time. The name Beaufort is Old French for "beautiful fortress."

Soon the heels of the historic site's capture, the IDF repeated a warning to everyone south of the Zahrani, saying they must evacuate or else face the possibility of coming under attack and thus death or injury.

"Anyone present near Hezbollah elements, facilities or means of combat endangers their life," an IDF spokesman said. The castle appears to have been shelled by the IDF before the final ground assault.

According to more details via The Times of Israel:

Troops took over territory in the Beaufort Ridge and Wadi Saluki stream area and expanded strikes north of the Litani River after the Hezbollah terror group fired multiple rockets and drones at Israel on Saturday afternoon and evening, forcing schools near the border with Lebanon to close on Sunday.

Footage from Sunday morning showed Israeli and IDF flags flying over the citadel, a strategic medieval Crusader-built fortress with symbolic importance in the history of Israel’s military entanglements in Lebanon. Shelling was audible and smoke rose from the surrounding area.

The fortress, also known as Qalaat al-Shakif, commands sweeping views of the Galilee Panhandle in northern Israel, as well as the Nabatieh area in southern Lebanon, making it a position of considerable strategic value.

Footage of IDF forces taking Beaufort Castle in southern Lebanon. pic.twitter.com/D8Vr0qVfQH

— Amit Segal (@AmitSegal) May 31, 2026

The day prior to the takeover, northern Israel had come under heavy Hezbollah rocket and drone attack. These rocket waves have been stepped up as it's become clear the Lebanon ceasefire has effectively collapsed.

The past week has seen hundreds of projectiles fired on southern Lebanon. Gong back to early March, over 3,180 Lebanese have been killed, with more than 9,000 wounded - according to Lebanese health officials. The figures do not distinguish between armed combatants or civilians.

Critics of Israel have warned that Netanyahu is trying to sabotage Trump's efforts to find a final peace deal with Iran. The Israelis have long worried that Washington could in the end settle for a 'bad deal' - or one that doesn't ensure the complete destruction of Iran's nuclear program and highly enriched uranium.

Lebanon’s LBCI airs footage of the flags of Israel and Sayeret Golani flying over Beaufort Castle in southern Lebanon, north of the Litani River. pic.twitter.com/wCsqvQ6Ue1

— Ariel Oseran أريئل أوسيران (@ariel_oseran) May 31, 2026

The US-mediated truce was really only something that was meant to prevent Israel from bombing Beirut and other government centers once again.

Washington has been trying to put the pressure on the Lebanese government and national army to finally disarm Hezbollah - but this has remained unrealistic as the army is weak and underfunded (ironically in part due to limitations imposed by the US).

Tyler Durden Sun, 05/31/2026 - 19:15

The End Of Digital Trust: How Quantum Computing Could Upend Security, Business, & Global Stability

Authored by Julio Rivera via American Greatness,

The scariest technology threats are usually the boring ones. Not the giant killer robots. Not the science fiction stuff. Not the dramatic movie scenes where somebody in sunglasses launches cyberattacks from a glowing underground bunker while alarms blare in the background. The truly dangerous threats arrive quietly. Q-Day falls squarely into that category.

To most people, the phrase sounds like something Netflix would slap on a conspiracy thriller thumbnail. In reality, it refers to the moment quantum computers become powerful enough to break the encryption systems that protect modern digital life. And when cybersecurity experts talk about this possibility, they don’t sound excited. No, they sound exhausted—because they know how unprepared much of the world still is.

Encryption is the invisible architecture underneath almost everything people interact with daily. Online banking. Cloud storage. Corporate systems. Government communications. Military operations. Healthcare records. Financial transactions. Satellites. Power infrastructure. Nearly every digital system that matters relies on cryptographic protections developed for a pre-quantum world.

That world is running out of time. Experts increasingly warn that quantum computing breakthroughs are advancing faster than expected, while organizations remain painfully slow to adapt. And corporate leadership still doesn’t fully grasp the seriousness of what’s coming.

A lot of companies approach cybersecurity the way people approach oil changes. They know they’re supposed to deal with it eventually, but they’d rather postpone the expense until smoke starts coming out of something important. Meanwhile, cybercriminals and hostile governments are operating several moves ahead.

The phrase “harvest now, decrypt later” has become one of the most alarming concepts in modern cybersecurity. Adversaries are already stealing encrypted information today with the expectation that future quantum systems will eventually crack the protections surrounding it.

That means the threat isn’t waiting for some future technological milestone. The threat has already started. And the scope of what’s potentially vulnerable is staggering. Intellectual property. Trade secrets. Proprietary AI systems. Pharmaceutical research. Defense communications. Infrastructure schematics. Diplomatic cables. Financial data. Internal corporate strategy. Decades of archived encrypted communications that organizations assumed would remain secure indefinitely.

A lot of executives still imagine cyberattacks as noisy smash-and-grab operations. Ransom notes. Locked systems. Flashing warnings. But some of the most effective compromises are almost embarrassingly subtle.

“Stealer” malware remains devastatingly efficient in the current cyber landscape, quietly extracting passwords, session cookies, authentication credentials, browser data, crypto wallets, and sensitive company access without triggering major alarms. Fake file deletion warnings and fraudulent system compromise messages still trick countless ordinary users into handing over access voluntarily. Some of the oldest scams in the book continue working because panic overrides common sense faster than any firewall can react.

Quantum computing doesn’t replace those existing threats; it magnifies them. And the implications extend far beyond corporate cybersecurity budgets.

If hostile governments achieve practical quantum decryption capabilities before widespread migration to post-quantum cryptography occurs, global security dynamics could shift dramatically overnight. Military communications, intelligence systems, satellite infrastructure, weapons logistics, and secure diplomatic channels all potentially become vulnerable in ways modern governments have never fully experienced before.

That kind of uncertainty changes how nations behave. Secure communications aren’t just a convenience for modern governments; they are foundational to deterrence, alliances, military coordination, intelligence operations, and geopolitical stability itself. Once nations begin doubting the integrity of those systems, mistrust escalates rapidly.

Which is why the recent diplomatic summit between China and the United States should have produced far more discussion about continuing to modernize the increasingly outdated 1979 science and technology agreement between the two countries. That framework belongs to an era before cyber warfare, before AI competition, before semiconductor dependency battles, and certainly before the looming quantum race currently shaping long-term national security strategy.

The technological relationship between global superpowers is no longer some side issue tucked away in academic policy circles. It is the policy circle.

And while governments maneuver strategically, private industry continues lagging dangerously behind. Many companies still rely on fragmented security practices, aging infrastructure, weak endpoint protection, and reactive cyber strategies designed for a threat environment that no longer exists. The time to improve cyber resilience started long ago.

The timeline problem makes everything worse. Migrating critical systems toward quantum-resistant cryptography takes years. Large enterprises often don’t even have complete inventories of where vulnerable encryption exists across their networks.

So, while the public still treats quantum computing like futuristic science fiction, cybersecurity professionals are staring at calendars.

Because unlike Y2K, there may not be one dramatic moment where everybody suddenly realizes the danger has arrived.

Instead, the erosion could happen gradually.

Silent infiltration. Invisible interception.

Archived communications quietly unlocked years later. Competitive advantages disappearing without obvious explanation. State actors obtaining access to sensitive information nobody ever imagined could be exposed.

That’s the nightmare scenario. Not chaos. Not collapse. Simply the slow realization that the digital locks humanity built around its most sensitive information no longer work the way everyone assumed they did.

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ZeroHedge.

Tyler Durden Sun, 05/31/2026 - 18:40

Berkshire Buys Taylor Morrison For $6.8 Billion In First Big Deal Under Greg Abel

Less than a month after we mused at Berkshire's most recent cash hoard which as of March 31 stood just shy of $400 billion, and wondered who Warren Buffett's replacement Greg Abel will acquire first...

... we got the answer on Sunday afternoon, when Berkshire announced it will acquire homebuilder Taylor Morrison Home Corp. in an all-cash deal worth about $6.8 billion. Which means that after the deal, Berkshire still has $390 billion in T-bills collecting about 3.5%. 

The offer of $72.50 per common share represents a 24% premium to the home builder’s latest closing price on Friday. The deal is expected to close in the second half of this year.

Taylor Morrison is one of the largest community developers and homebuilders in the US and also offers financial services like home loans, titles, escrow and insurance to consumers, according to the statement. The firm has more than 350 communities across 12 states. The existing Taylor Morrison management team, including Chief Executive Officer Sheryl Palmer, will continue to lead the firm, according to the statement.

“We are excited to welcome Taylor Morrison into Berkshire’s portfolio,” Greg Abel, chief executive officer of Berkshire Hathaway, said in a statement Sunday. “Over time, we expect to unify our site-built homebuilding operations into a combined platform enabling us to deliver the dream of homeownership to more Americans.”

This is the first multibillion-dollar acquisition under Abel, who took over Berkshire Hathaway earlier this year after Warren Buffett retired last year.  While investors have been satisfied with Abel’s command over the sprawling conglomerate, some have been hoping that a deal could support Berkshire’s shares, which fell 5.6% so far this year, largely due to Berkshire's lack of exposure to the AI bubble. The S&P 500 index gained 10.7% in the same period.

It is unclear if the deal signals that Abel believes the bottom for the US housing market is coming, or if Berkshire is buying a homebuilder during a brutal housing labor shortage, giving companies like Taylor Morrison operating leverage despite sky high mortgage rates. In any case, while millions of Americans have been hoping and praying that 8% mortgage will crash the housing market - which has never been more unaffordable - and allow them to enter at lower price, the investor with the biggest cash pile in history just bought a builder outright with cash from under the rug, as a three million home supply deficit clearly overrides the soaring cost of capital. 

Tyler Durden Sun, 05/31/2026 - 17:40

Oil's Peace Dividend Is Real, But Normalization Is Not A Light Switch

Authored by Stephen Innes via The Dark Side Of The Boom,

• Markets can remove geopolitical risk premium far faster than physical energy systems can recover.

• The real post-war story may be strategic reserve rebuilding rather than simply falling oil prices.

• Canada's emerging Pacific LNG corridor highlights how Asia is increasingly seeking supply routes that bypass Hormuz altogether.

• The shift from efficiency to resilience could become one of the most important structural drivers of oil and LNG demand over the coming decade.

• The U.S.-Iran war may eventually end, but the infrastructure and energy-security investments it triggers could shape global markets for years to come.

Normalization Is Not A Light Switch

The market is increasingly behaving as though the U.S.-Iran war is ending and the oil market is about to return to normal. I suspect that view is only half right. The war may indeed be moving toward its final chapters, but the physical energy system does not heal as quickly as financial markets.

Traders can reprice risk in minutes, while tankers, inventories, insurance markets, refinery supply chains, LNG terminals, pipelines, export infrastructure, and strategic reserves move on an entirely different clock. That distinction may ultimately become one of the defining energy trades of the next 12 months because while markets are already beginning to price the end of the conflict, they are nowhere close to pricing what comes next.

Financial markets are discounting machines. They do not wait for events to occur; they attempt to price conditions months into the future. Once traders become convinced that the probability of a prolonged disruption to the Hormuz disruption is fading, the risk premium embedded in crude prices begins to evaporate immediately. Long positions accumulated during the height of the conflict are reduced. Hedges are unwound. Volatility sellers return. Systematic funds reverse positioning.

The market begins trading the world it expects to exist rather than the one that exists today. That process is already underway, which is why crude can fall sharply long before the physical market has actually recovered. But reopening Hormuz and normalizing the oil market are two entirely different events, and I think investors are increasingly at risk of conflating them.

Think of the global energy system as a giant circulatory network. Hormuz is one of its major arteries. Reopening the artery is critical, but it does not instantly restore the patient's health. During the conflict, the world did not simply lose supply. It consumed inventories as a substitute for supply. According to the IEA, global oil inventories suffered extraordinary drawdowns as the crisis unfolded.

March alone saw roughly 129 million barrels disappear from storage, followed by another 117 million barrel draw in April. Combined, nearly a quarter billion barrels were removed from global stockpiles in just two months. At the same time, global supply losses reached an estimated 12.8 million barrels per day, while Gulf production remained roughly 14.4 million barrels per day below pre-war levels. Those are not the statistics of a market that can simply flip a switch and return to equilibrium.

They are the statistics of a market that has been living off its emergency reserves.

That is why I believe many investors are focusing on the wrong milestone. The real question is not when Hormuz reopens. The real question is what happens after it reopens. Even if shipping resumes tomorrow, producers still need time to restore output. Tankers must be repositioned. Export schedules need rebuilding. Insurance markets require confidence that transit routes are secure. Refiners must recalibrate supply chains after months of operating under emergency conditions.

The entire logistical ecosystem needs time to regain rhythm. History consistently shows that restoring physical flows takes far longer than restoring access.

The tanker market itself offers an important clue. Many investors assume vessel traffic will immediately return to pre-war levels, but shipowners, insurers, cargo traders, and refiners are unlikely to behave with complete confidence simply because a ceasefire is announced. Months of elevated risk have changed behaviour. Insurance premiums remain elevated. Security assessments remain cautious. Commercial decisions tend to lag political headlines.

In fact, the first weeks following a reopening may actually produce temporary bottlenecks as vessels rush to move cargoes simultaneously. Freight rates could remain elevated even as crude prices fall, creating a market dynamic that appears contradictory on the surface but is entirely consistent with a system transitioning from crisis toward recovery. Markets may celebrate peace while the physical supply chain is still untangling months of disruption.

Yet even that may prove to be only the first chapter of the post-war story. The consensus view assumes that Asia will simply return to business as usual once the Hormuz reopens. I think that assumption misses the deeper lesson of this conflict. If there is one thing policymakers across Asia have learned over the past several months, it is that energy security can no longer be treated as a background issue.

Just as Europe never looked at Russian gas the same way after Ukraine, Asia may never look at its dependence on Middle Eastern energy the same way after Hormuz.

This is where I think the market is missing the next major theme entirely. Most investors are focused on falling oil prices, but the more important development may be what governments do after prices fall. The first phase of normalization is the removal of the geopolitical risk premium. The second phase is rebuilding commercial inventories. The third phase is strategic stockpiling.

The fourth phase is a multi-year energy-security buildout that could reshape energy demand and infrastructure investment across Asia for years to come. In other words, the market is pricing peace while potentially overlooking the structural consequences of the war itself.

For decades, governments optimized their energy systems for efficiency. Inventories were minimized. Storage costs were reduced. Supply chains were streamlined. The assumption was that global markets would always provide sufficient supply when needed. Hormuz shattered that assumption. Policymakers have now witnessed firsthand what happens when a single geopolitical chokepoint threatens the flow of energy to billions of people.

When governments experience a shock of that magnitude, they rarely conclude they need fewer reserves. They almost always conclude they need more.

China is perhaps the clearest example. Beijing was already expanding strategic petroleum reserves before the conflict, but the war has likely reinforced the urgency of that effort. Japan is expanding LNG storage capacity while reassessing its broader energy-security framework. South Korea is reviewing reserve policies and pursuing deeper regional energy cooperation. India continues expanding both crude storage and LNG import capacity.

Across Southeast Asia, governments are increasingly asking how many days of import protection they truly need in a world where energy security can disappear overnight.

But the story does not stop at inventories.

What makes this cycle different from previous oil shocks is that governments are increasingly responding not only by storing more energy but by redesigning how energy reaches them in the first place. The lesson many Asian policymakers appear to have taken from the U.S.-Iran war is that diversification is no longer simply an economic choice. It is becoming a national security requirement.

That realization is already beginning to reshape global energy infrastructure. For years, Canada possessed some of the world's largest natural gas reserves but lacked the infrastructure to export it efficiently to Asia. Western Canadian gas was largely trapped by geography, forced to flow south into North America rather than west across the Pacific. Today, that is changing.

The completion of Coastal GasLink and the launch of LNG Canada on British Columbia's Pacific Coast have created a direct energy corridor linking the Montney shale basin to Asian consumers. Additional projects such as Cedar LNG, Woodfibre LNG, and Ksi Lisims LNG could substantially expand Canada's export capacity over the coming decade.

The significance extends well beyond supply growth. A cargo leaving Kitimat reaches North Asia faster than many competing export routes and, more importantly, bypasses Hormuz entirely. For buyers in Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, India, Thailand, and Southeast Asia, that is becoming a strategic advantage rather than merely a logistical one. The market keeps asking when Middle Eastern supply returns. Policymakers are increasingly asking how to reduce dependence on Middle Eastern supply altogether.

Viewed through that lens, the post-war story is no longer simply about rebuilding inventories. It is about building redundancy. China is expanding storage. Japan is expanding LNG infrastructure. South Korea is strengthening energy-security partnerships. India is increasing import flexibility. Canada is building export capacity. Utilities across Asia are locking in longer-term supply agreements. The common thread is resilience.

In many respects, this resembles what happened after the 1973 oil embargo. The crisis itself eventually faded, but the infrastructure decisions it triggered lasted for decades. Strategic petroleum reserves were created. Pipelines were built. Storage facilities expanded. Import routes diversified. Energy policy changed permanently. The same process may now be unfolding across Asia.

The U.S.-Iran war may eventually fade from the headlines, but the infrastructure investments it has triggered could shape global energy flows for the next generation.

The result is that the next source of oil and gas demand may not come from consumers driving more or factories producing more. It may come from governments buying more. Every barrel that enters a strategic reserve is a barrel removed from the spot market. Every LNG cargo redirected to storage is unavailable for immediate consumption.

Viewed through that lens, reopening Hormuz may not immediately trigger the inventory rebuild many traders expect because governments themselves could become among the largest buyers in the market. The same countries that spent the war drawing down inventories may now spend years rebuilding and expanding them.

The LNG side of the equation may be even more significant. Unlike crude oil, LNG inventories are generally smaller and less flexible. Many Asian economies maintain relatively limited emergency gas reserves. The experience of both the European gas crisis and the disruption in Hormuz has accelerated discussions around strategic LNG storage, additional regasification terminals, expanded reserve facilities, diversified import infrastructure, and longer-term supply agreements.

The conversation is no longer simply about securing the cheapest molecule. It is increasingly about securing the most reliable one.

There is another layer that markets may be overlooking. The coming decade is expected to see enormous growth in electricity demand driven by AI infrastructure, data centres, semiconductor manufacturing, and digital industrialization. Across much of Asia, LNG is expected to remain a critical bridge fuel supporting that expansion. Governments are not merely trying to secure energy for today's economy. They are increasingly trying to secure energy for tomorrow's AI economy.

Strategic stockpiling, infrastructure expansion, and structural demand growth may soon be pointing in the same direction.

This is why I remain cautious about the simplistic view that oil will simply collapse back to pre-war levels and stay there. Yes, the geopolitical risk premium can disappear quickly. Yes, tanker traffic can improve. Yes, physical flows can recover.

But simultaneously, inventories must be rebuilt, strategic reserves expanded, LNG security frameworks strengthened, storage facilities constructed, pipelines developed, export routes diversified, and governments across Asia will seek redundancy where previously they sought efficiency. The irony is that the market is currently celebrating the potential end of the war while largely ignoring the structural demand it may have created.

Ultimately, I think the market is still looking at this through a trader's lens, when it should increasingly look at it through a policymaker's lens. Traders see peace and immediately calculate how much risk premium can be extracted from the barrel. Governments see the same peace and begin calculating how many additional barrels and LNG cargoes they need to secure before the next crisis arrives. Those are not the same calculations, and they point toward very different futures.

That is why I believe the oil market is entering a far more complicated phase than many investors appreciate. The peace dividend may arrive quickly. The normalization dividend may take months. But the energy-security dividend, driven by reserve rebuilding, strategic stockpiling, LNG infrastructure expansion, pipeline development, and a region-wide reassessment of supply vulnerability, may take years to fully unfold.

By the time markets recognize that distinction, the next great source of energy demand may already be underway. The U.S.-Iran war may be ending, but the race to secure energy for the next one may just be beginning.

Tyler Durden Sun, 05/31/2026 - 17:30

What Are Americans Most Worried About?

Statista’s Consumer Insights survey has been tracking which issues adults in the United States consider to be the most important in the country right now, and how they have shifted over time.

The following chart, via Statista's Anna Fleck, provides just a snapshot of these, listing the eight most cited concerns out of a possible 20 options, in the most recent survey wave as well as in the survey wave at the start of the pandemic.

You will find more infographics at Statista

Where health and social security came first in the earlier iteration, likely in reference to Covid-19, it had dropped by eight percentage points by 2025/26.

In the meantime, inflation and the cost of living has risen from third position to first position (+9 p.p).

Other notable changes include a drop in the share of people citing immigration in the latest wave and an increase in the share of people picking housing (previously in rank 14 at 22 percent).

Six of the eight most recent most pressing issues are social, with the sole environmental topic of climate change having dropped off the list, coming in 14th position with 23 percent of respondents picking it, following issues such as education (rank nine), corruption (rank 10) and food and water security (rank 11).

As this chart shows, poverty is now on the minds of more U.S. adults, at least more imminently, than before.

Where it had previously tied in 9th position with education in 2019/20 with a 32 percent share of respondents picking it as one the most important issues facing the country at that time, the share had risen to 33 percent in the latest survey wave.

Tyler Durden Sun, 05/31/2026 - 16:55

Fighting While Talking, Horses And Security

By Peter Tchir of Academy Securities

Fighting While Talking, Horses, and Security

Some quick updates on recent themes. The latest on Iran is front and center, and if you missed this week’s Around the World, it is worth a look. Not just an Iran update, but we also cover Cuba, Russia/Ukraine, the China Summit, and Nigeria (I certainly need to get more up to speed on Africa). We will examine Universal Basic Income and the Job Market in the section we have decided to label Horses. While it feels like we’ve been talking about ProSec in one shape or form for well over a year (because we have), rather than getting “long in the tooth” it is just starting to get traction.

Fighting While Talking

The definition of “ceasefire” is what both sides make of it. It is easy to think of a “ceasefire” as being as simple as both sides “cease firing” at each other, but that is not how it works in the real world.

The concept of continuing attacks (typically but not always limited in scope) while discussing agreements has gone on since people first started picking up rocks and throwing them at each other. From a U.S. perspective, it was an explicit policy of Nixon and Kissinger when dealing with North Vietnam. Negotiate in Paris. Bomb away in Vietnam.

As the much anticipated announcement after Friday’s “situation room” meeting failed to materialize, we are reading of reports of Iran attacking U.S. bases in Kuwait. This, of course, from an Iranian perspective, is in response to some U.S. attacks last week in Bandar Abbas and in the Strait of Hormuz.

We can only assume negotiations are ongoing, as neither side seems prepared to go back to a higher level of military activity, so this is merely both sides reminding the other that they could go that way, if they wanted to.

Also, from our GIG, it has become very clear that the U.S. blockade of the Strait surprised Iran and created leverage that the initial military attacks had not.

The only thing I can say about the negotiations is that I think most people have become, at best, tired of the endless stream of “we are close” announcements. We’ve lost track of how many times markets have rallied on such announcements (often, but not always in the form of social media posts). At worst, there is a cynicism growing that the announcements are merely political attention-seeking moments, coupled with an “opportunity” to trade. The number of people who immediately search the prediction market sites, or look for large trades in oil or stock futures to see if there is some sort of “confirmation” that the headline is new and real, is almost staggering.

While the front end of the crude oil futures market (which is not the same contract as when this war started) responds very well to peace deal announcements, the longer end of the curve is not as responsive. I’ve been picking the January 2027 WTI contract because it is WTI (so it benefits from U.S. energy independence and it is 2027). It is still $77. Below its high of $83, but not much below. It didn’t get above $77 for the first time until late March. This was below $60 prior to the war. I guess this is a long-winded way of saying Higher For Longer On Energy Prices.

The consensus is that we will not see serious re-escalation, but both the U.S. and Iran seem to be having difficulty in framing a deal as a victory (Iran, because it has been hit hard, and the U.S. because we seem to have moved a long way from “unconditional surrender”).

The one thing that I think is starting to sink in is that higher for longer on energy is real, even with a deal, and that is problematic for a world struggling with affordability.

Horses

What the heck are we talking about horses for? What do horses have to do with anything, let alone AI? We have seen commencement speeches where college graduates have booed the mention of AI. We had the rather unfortunate (in my opinion) term “lower value human capital” enter the lexicon. My editors cringe at some of the things I write and say, but wow!

Not surprisingly, we have seen many in the industry downplay the risks to jobs. Even some leaders who until recently had predicted job losses, especially for white-collar employees, reversed course and are now predicting hiring based on increased efficiencies.

I think the jury is still out on this. There are some examples that I’ve seen that seem to indicate the potential for employment growth.

• One story I’ve seen, but didn’t track down for the report is “AI’s ability to analyze X-rays has led to more radiologists.” Seems plausible and certainly fits the efficiency story (though there may be other reasons we have more radiologists).
• Another report that was circulated, and that I found on social media, discussed how the number of tellers in the U.S. rose even with the introduction of ATMs. You can find the post on Twitter by searching for AI ATM Tellers. This was passed around as an example of how people (tellers in this case) adapt to new technology and become more efficient. The reason I did not include a link to this idea is because I think it is quite flawed and did not feel like starting a fight. It did not normalize for a large growth in the number of people working in the U.S. during the phase that ATMs were rolled out, presumably creating greater need for banking. It didn’t discuss that during the first 20 years of the ATM, the GDP of the U.S. quintupled. It was also a period where suburbia grew. I would argue that if you controlled for the number of people who needed accounts, the increasing complexity of personal finances, and the shift in population, this probably more than accounts for why tellers didn’t fare as badly as initially feared with the introduction of ATMs. Anyway, I’ve ranted too much on this subject, but I think it is important that we think critically about what various technologies have or have not done for employment.

Buggy whip manufacturers. If you take an introductory business school class you will likely hear about the “plight” of buggy whip manufacturers.

A great business until the advent of the automobile. The automobile, over a relatively short period of time, destroyed this business. But the automobile was great! The automobile companies did spectacularly well! (Though many of the early, even well-known ones failed, but that is a concept for another day). The country did well as the automobile (and trucking) reshaped the economy for the better! Isn’t this the perfect example of how a new, efficient technology drives growth and jobs as a whole, even if some sectors lose?

• But what about the horses? According to Grok, there were over 25 million horses and mules in the U.S. around 1920. The “horses” were “employed” on farms and for urban transport. Recent estimates put the horse population at under 7 million today. Now, the horses that are alive today are mostly for recreation, sport, and breeding, rather than working. Far fewer horses today, but those horses that are around live the life of Riley compared to what their ancestors lived.
  • If AI is like what automobiles were to humans, we are in for a great ride!
  • If AI is like what automobiles were to horses, we could be in some trouble, though those left working should be in great shape!
    • I’m probably more in the first camp, but this technology seems very different (or maybe it just seems very different as it is applied directly in areas I know and deal with?). I don’t want to think that we might be the first population that is “creating our own extinction event,” but I have read too much sci-fi to keep that thought completely at bay.

In any case, if anyone reading this can even entertain these thoughts, you know that politicians will try to find ways to capture that animosity. My assumption is that the “control group” of people reading the T-Report are all exploring AI. All trying to figure out how to use it. Many, including myself and Academy Securities, are benefiting from the growth of AI. Data centers, AI, and chips are a core part of ProSec but I can see the rising angst playing out in real time.

Politicians interfering with the industry may become a risk to growth and profitability. It isn’t there yet (this admin is extremely supportive of not just the AI growth, but also the electricity generation and transmission to power the industry). Which might be the perfect time to bring up this little section, that doesn’t quite fit into this theme directly, but seems relevant.

• Keep an eye on South Korea. We are seeing a wave of “AI bonuses” being paid. This is being paid to employees of companies who are doing well because of the boom in AI and data centers (chips, memory etc.). That is the “norm” in the U.S. but sounds like it is unusual in South Korea. The stories probably wouldn’t have attracted my attention at all, since it is so logical from a U.S. perspective, but this is a country that just a couple of weeks ago had started to see political figures discuss paying the citizens from the profits/tax revenues generated by the AI success story – which seems like a potential “slippery slope” way of introducing Universal Basic Income (UBI). Or I guess if you are an advocate of UBI, the potential launching point for a much-needed wealth redistribution.

I recently spoke at a conference for risk management (primarily for large financial institutions). I discussed with the conference organizer the number of AI, cyber, and agentic AI presentations. It seemed like about half the conference was focused on those subjects. The organizer confirmed that was correct and was about the same as the prior year, when they really made a big effort to steer the conference in that direction. What was interesting though was that in 2025, the audience was enthusiastic to learn so much. That it was a relatively new area and the topic resonated. While they have yet to receive final feedback from this year’s conference, the initial feedback was that people wanted case studies and examples, not just high-level perspectives. Everyone knows and is trying to use these technologies (at work and at home). No one needs to be told how important they are. How rapidly they are growing. Just take one look at the stock market and you know that. What people wanted to know this year is how the heck are people using them and what is their experience! I found that interesting and it resonates with me, as I’m probably in that same camp. Some successes mixed with sometimes wondering why I bothered trying AI in the first place. I don’t know what this shift means, but it is interesting (and may explain why AI trainers are getting paid boatloads of money ).

If this seems a little more like thinking out loud than having a strong opinion, that’s because it probably is. But thinking out loud seems like a good way to get our hands around this amazing evolution.

Going Production for Security

We finished a great week of meetings in London this past week. I heard a little bit too much about “defense” bonds and a little too little about ProSec bonds for my tastes (Mike Rodriguez, Academy’s Head of Sustainable Finance, has a great deck on the concept). I’m just kidding about that (not the deck, which is great, but that I heard too much about defense bonds).

Europe is shifting towards security and resiliency rapidly

We could drone on and on about how much things have changed in Europe’s positioning on ESG and how quickly they are moving to something that aligns itself with ProSec but it is the end of a short, but tricky week in markets, so we won’t belabor you with details.
What we will do, instead, is present what Treasury Secretary Bessent (@SecScottBessent) put out in a tweet on Friday (the bold is my handiwork):

• For too long, our political class treated efficiency as a substitute for resilience, and consumption as a measure of prosperity.
• Trade policy, industrial capacity, and national security are inseparable. And to allow foreign dependencies to degrade any one of those domains is to allow them to define America’s future. Under @POTUS’ leadership, we are rebuilding domestic production to restore American sovereignty.

I admit there is a lot of politics in his statement, more than I would like, but it does highlight and encapsulate more of what we have been saying and writing about on ProSec.

I do think there is a LOT MORE ROOM to work with close allies and neighbors than this statement hints at, but that will evolve over time, even with the current administration.

In a fireside chat with the CEO of a player in the energy industry, I latched on to the concept that Canada of all places, might be given one of the rare opportunities for a “do over.” Say 15 years ago, both the U.S. and Canada were well positioned to grow their LNG business. The U.S. did so and is reaping the dividends from that! Canada got mired in regulation and has been pretty much left in the starting blocks. But now, with the world looking for alternatives to the Middle East, Canada has been given another chance to get out of the gate and try to take advantage of the shifting needs.

While I already chafe, a little, at the U.S. admin’s rhetoric that comes across as America Only, that is not how Europe sees it. In part Europe doesn’t have an abundance of all the natural resources they might need, so they will be forced to work with trusted partners. The U.S. can and will be a part of that, but semantics and talking points do matter over time. New alliances will be formed or solidified and there is a great opportunity, across the globe, to join in the ProSec theme (I almost said movement, because that is a bit political, but…)

• Here is a link to ProSec 2026 if you haven’t seen it or want a refresh.
• If you have interest in seeing our thoughts on the framework for a ProSec Bond, feel free to reach out to your coverage officer at Academy.

We are in the early stages of shifting from one stable order (rules-based with China flaunting the rules, to another, with more (but not total) independence). See Molotov Cocktails.

Bottom Line

This coming week we should:

• Learn more about the status between the U.S. and Iran. In either case, I think the higher for longer theme for energy prices will sink in and start to price itself into markets even more than it already has.
• Get some more clarity on the job market (within the kind of insanely large margins for error that we just somehow learn to deal with).

I’m sticking with the view that we have a tale of two economies: the AI, data center, and chip economy vs the Affordability economy. They are intertwined, with some degree of overlap.

• The AI/Data Center/Chip economy is okay for jobs for now (the building of data centers and the infrastructure to support them creates a lot of jobs). It has been GREAT for stock market indices.
• The affordability economy is a drag on some consumption and confidence. This part of the economy is sucking more households into it, here and abroad, and that is not good.

Bond yields have dropped in the past week, which has been good and in no small part has been helped by the ongoing barrage of “open the Strait” headlines.

I expect that to reverse course as we are near the bottom end of the range on 10s and I am now fully in the camp that 10s hit 5% before they hit 4%. Any effort to cut rates by the Fed, given the current state of economic data, would likely end up in higher long-end bond yields, because it is increasingly difficult to come up with a narrative to support a cut. That is a very different view than I had before the war started (and some big headline NFP job numbers were released).

It would be nice to get some resolution with Iran so we can move back to all the usual uncertainties like spending, jobs, AI, inflation, the Fed, etc.

Tyler Durden Sun, 05/31/2026 - 16:20

The New Yorker Thinks Patriotism Is "Problematic"

In a meandering essay name dropping every dress-to-impress academic figure from Voltaire to Alexis de Tocqueville to Howard Zinn, The New Yorker has set out on a quest to explain how the progressive left can essentially despise the country they live in the name of social justice, while also adopting the perks of "patriotism" so they can own the Chuds.

The publication throws around some curious stats and asserts that patriotism is on the decline because, as they argue, patriotism today requires people to be blind to the injustices of the past.  They note:

"...We seem to be in a down moment. A Gallup poll found that, in the past dozen years, the percentage of people in the U.S. who say that they’re “extremely proud to be American” has plunged by sixteen points. A recent Harris poll noted that roughly four in ten Americans have considered relocating outside the country, with younger Americans even more inclined..."

"Last May, Newsweek published an article with the melancholy headline “Why Dual Citizenship Is the New American Dream.” Some commentators ascribe this to financial prudence, but the trend dates back at least to 2016 and the election of Donald Trump..."

Trump, the ever present and useful bogeyman, is obviously to blame.  The New Yorker, of course, glosses over the fact that the majority of the people who feel "less patriotic" in that Gallup poll are Democrats who are highly indoctrinated by establishment media to obsess over "historical injustices."  The outlet applauds the decline, in a way.  It's rooted in the same old DEI and 1619 Project talking points that the woke media has been peddling for over a decade. 

"Patriotism just isn’t cool anymore. Wokeness, having rightly called attention to racial and gender injustices long endemic to American life, helped chill the left’s admiration for the nation..."    

"Ours is a complicated history, made more tortuous by race. Some five hundred Indigenous nations lived here before the first enslaved Africans arrived, in 1619 - a year before the first Pilgrims. That, too, is American history, along with Reconstruction, Jim Crow, segregation, the Great Migration, Black anger, Black humor, and Black culture. This isn’t wokeness; it’s fact. 

Trump’s America has the virtue of simplicity: no initial divisions; no loyalists and patriots, or Native peoples and settlers, or Federalists and Anti-Federalists. He’s not bothered by labor unrest, unfair imprisonment, white-nationalist undercurrents..."

Yes, it is wokeness, and The New Yorker cites some "facts" but as usual they don't tell the whole truth.  It's an approximation of history (using cherry-picked facts) based on the political left's own convenient narratives.  For example, they make no mention of the fact that some of the very first slave owners in US history were black.  Nor do they mention that there were at least 3775 black slave owners in the American South in 1830 and up to 6000 black slave owners by the time the Civil War kicked off. 

They don't mention that the vast majority of the African slaves present in the American colonies were captured and sold by other Africans.  No, leftists can't handle that kind of truth, or they deny it, which is why they can never be patriots.

And why not talk about the uglier side of the indigenous tribes, many of which brutalized and enslaved each other long before the first white man ever set foot on the continent?  Why not mention the rape, genocide and cannibalism common among these groups?  Why not mention that when white settlers arrived, many American Indian tribes sought the protection of Europeans from other indians?

Well, The New Yorker doesn't talk about that because these facts undermine the entire foundation of far-left propaganda:  That the white man is the cause of all the world's problems. 

In reality, every group of people and every race around the globe has committed brutal acts of conquest and slavery.  No one is innocent.  Everyone is guilty.  White people were just the first group to put an end to it all.

But what is patriotism?  That is the question The New Yorker seems to ponder, though what they are really asking is:  "Who gets to define patriotism?"  This is the only thing leftists care about, because the power to define is the power to control.  And they want to control everything.  

For example, the publication harps on once again about the "horrors" of January 6th, and labels it a criminal attack masquerading as an act of patriotism.  Again, no mention of the numerous federal agents planted in the crowd to lead protesters into the building, and no mention of the Capitol Police using tear gas and rubber bullets to anger the crowd into violence. 

"What to my mind isn’t patriotism, though it was sometimes couched as such, was the behavior of the assembled throng that, on January 6, 2021, stormed the U.S. Capitol to prevent Congress from certifying the 2020 election. Awful as it was, it felt less like an insurrection than like an ugly mob bent on destruction and self-display..."

It's interesting that The New Yorker has such a distaste for the J6 "mob" while lavishing BLM with praise and defending the riots as a proud display of righteous rebellion.  Those mobs were far more destructive and killed numerous people.  All the J6 crowd did was break some windows, walk into the Capitol Building and leave an hour later.      

The New Yorker's examination is not nuanced or complex at all.  It pretends to be, but it is incredibly simplistic:  If you are a hardcore conservative, a traditionalist, a nationalist, an advocate for controlled immigration, an opponent of DEI, or a MAGA voter, you are "not a patriot."  Why?  Because the left says so.  Because they want to dictate the terms of patriotism and if they can't, then patriotism has to go.        

Traditionally in America it has always been the real patriots that get to define what patriotism is.  It's about the people who want to preserve America's founding principles, not rewrite them or erase them in the name of "modernity."  The people who understand that some values are eternal and remain relevant regardless of technological progress or the tides of political correctness. 

It's about loving one's country, not merely tolerating it until you can tear it down in the name of building something you think is better.     

Compared to America's overall accomplishments, the perceived historical "missteps" are meaningless.  They do not matter.  Slavery is irrelevant.  The wars against the native tribes and the "stolen land" are irrelevant.  Jim Crow is irrelevant. Leftists can stew in these past events all they like, but that's not going to win them any points in determining America's future path.    

And this is a reality that woke adherents will never accept, because they are not patriots, they are deconstructionists.  Their goal is to dismantle the western world, and America by extension.  Which means, they conveniently turn a microscope on the portions of US history that are considered oppressive by today's standards and harness those examples as a weapon to attack and dismantle the country as it exists now.  The US is a country increasingly looking to pull back from the brink of progressive revisionism, and they don't like that.

So, activist entities like The New Yorker turn to gaslighting.  For them, history is nothing more than a Molotov Cocktail.  They burn down the past in order to dictate the present.  They clamor to co-opt the American ideal, but they don't actually care about it.  They want to wear it as a skin suit while they dismantle it.  True patriotism is beyond their comprehension.  

Tyler Durden Sun, 05/31/2026 - 15:45

America's LNG Boom Is Real - But China Is Planning Beyond It

Authored by Cyril Widdershoven via OilPrice.com,

• The Iran war and Hormuz disruption have turbocharged U.S. LNG exports, giving Washington a major short-term energy dominance boost as Asia and Europe scramble for alternative supply.

• China, however, enters the crisis from a position of greater energy resilience after years of investment in domestic production.

• The U.S. still has a major long-term opportunity, but sustaining dominance will require turning crisis-driven demand into lasting partnerships.

The Iran war has handed the United States a rare opportunity: a new dawn of energy dominance in an increasingly fractured world. With coordinated US-Israeli strikes disrupting the Strait of Hormuz from late February, roughly 20% of global LNG supply has been stripped from the market since early March. Prices have surged across Asia and Europe. And into that vacuum, American gas has flowed.

The numbers speak for themselves. US LNG exports to Asia jumped sharply in April, with nearly a quarter of all American cargoes heading to a region that simply cannot afford to go dark. Deals are being signed, pipelines planned, and $100 billion in private investment is pouring into liquefaction plants and terminals, putting the US on a trajectory toward 220 MTPA of export capacity within five years. The administration's energy dominance agenda, backed by promises to streamline permitting, has given producers a powerful political tailwind and reassured global buyers seeking reliability. Washington's case for American LNG has never been easier to make.

But dominance built on a crisis is not the same as dominance built on trust. And there is a competitor watching this moment very carefully.

China entered this crisis in a structurally different position. Two decades of sustained investment in domestic energy production, spanning generation, storage, and distribution, have left Beijing considerably less exposed to the supply shocks rattling Western and Asian markets alike. Its economy has not been immune, but it has been buffered. That resilience has not gone unnoticed by governments scrambling to explain surging energy bills to their populations. While the US capitalises on the immediate demand surge, China is quietly accumulating something more durable: the perception of strategic foresight.

Yet beneath the boom lies a fault line. The conflict has been a short-term windfall for American producers; cash is flowing and the geopolitical case for US LNG writes itself. But the longer the crisis persists, the more urgently governments around the world will prioritise the same fundamental objective: never being held hostage to a single chokepoint again. The Hormuz disruption has concentrated minds in a way that years of energy dialogues have never quite managed. Countries across Asia and Europe are now accelerating plans to diversify supply sources, build strategic reserves, and develop domestic generation capacity across every available technology. The goal is insulation from the kind of shock this war has delivered, and that shift in priorities will outlast the conflict itself, because the memory of this vulnerability will not fade quickly.

This does not mean the window for American gas has closed. The transition to more resilient, independent energy systems will take decades, and reliable LNG from a powerful economy is precisely what energy-hungry Asian economies need throughout that journey. The US has the reserves, the infrastructure, the financial markets, and the geopolitical credibility that no other supplier can currently match. But Washington cannot afford to mistake a crisis-driven demand surge for a permanent structural advantage, because what buyers are ultimately building toward is a system in which no single disruption, whether in the Strait of Hormuz or anywhere else, can send their economies into shock again. The US needs to be architected into that system as an indispensable partner, not treated as an emergency option.

That requires more than competitive pricing and export capacity. It requires the kind of long-term supply relationships, infrastructure partnerships, and government-to-government commitments that turn a transaction into a dependency, the good kind, built on reliability rather than vulnerability. It requires Washington to show up as a strategic partner invested in the energy security of its buyers. And it requires the Iran conflict to reach a resolution that restores stability to global flows, because sustained disruption ultimately accelerates the very diversification strategies that could reduce the world's reliance on any single fuel source.

That is why forums like Gastech matter far beyond the conference floor. At Gastech 2025 in Milan, a high-profile US delegation led by Secretary of Energy Chris Wright and Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum used the event to demonstrate Washington's commitment to the global market and deepen long-term partnerships with European buyers. This September, the same strategic imperative shifts to Asia, as Gastech convenes ministers, industry CEOs, and technology leaders in Bangkok around the urgent supply security and resilience priorities now defining the global energy agenda. Bangkok demands the same level of engagement, but with even greater stakes. Positioned at the heart of the world's fastest-growing demand region, it is where the contracts signed today will shape the architecture of energy relationships for the next decade. It is where the US can arrive not only as the world's largest LNG exporter, but as the partner that helped Asia build the resilient, diversified, and secure energy systems its economies need, with American technology, American capital, and American gas at the centre of that architecture.

The use of energy as a diplomatic instrument, as a foundation for alliances and a signal of long-term intent, has already demonstrated its capacity to stabilise relationships and strengthen the position of reliable partners. But leverage only holds if buyers believe the relationship will endure beyond the current emergency. And that is ultimately what is being decided right now: whether the world organises its energy future around American reliability, or looks elsewhere for the security guarantees it needs.

American energy dominance is real, and the Iran war has made that case powerfully. But dominance has to be earned continuously, through the infrastructure being built, the contracts being signed, and the diplomatic relationships being deepened, conference room by conference room, deal by deal. The window is open. What matters now is how Washington chooses to use it.

Tyler Durden Sun, 05/31/2026 - 14:00

Did Iran Get Its Hands On A US Stealth Missile? JASSM-ER Wreckage Sparks Reverse-Engineering Fears

The U.S. committed nearly its entire stockpile of stealthy JASSM-ER cruise missiles to the military campaign against Iran and has fired at least 1,000 of these long-range, stealthy, precision cruise missiles to hit high-value IRGC targets.

One of the unavoidable risks of deploying advanced weapons, such as the JASSM-ER, is that unexploded or partially intact systems can fall into enemy hands, allowing adversaries to study U.S. technology, refine countermeasures, and accelerate the development of copycat versions.

A new report from Army Recognition, citing defense journalist Babak Taghvaee, claims Iran has recovered wreckage from a JASSM-ER near Arak, potentially giving Tehran access to fragments of the missile.

"The recovered debris reportedly includes composite airframe sections, structural components, propulsion fragments, and possible avionics elements that could reveal insights into stealth construction, fuel-efficient propulsion, and survivability design," according to the military blog.

Army Recognition cited images posted on X by Taghvaee showing what is described as badly damaged JASSM-ER wreckage recovered in Iran. The missile appears largely intact and possibly unexploded, which, if confirmed, would give Tehran higher-value intelligence on the advanced missile.

The number of AGM-158B JASSM-ER stand-off weapons (stealth cruise missiles) employed by the U.S. Air Force and U.S. Navy during the recent war in Iran was enormous. These missiles were used so extensively that debris and remains of them can now be found across various parts of… pic.twitter.com/NKzhR453mK

— Babak Taghvaee - The Crisis Watch (@BabakTaghvaee1) May 27, 2026

This incident is reminiscent of a similar one in 2011, when Iran captured a U.S. RQ-170 Sentinel stealth spy drone and claimed to have reverse-engineered the aircraft. Tehran later displayed and tested drones modeled on the RQ-170, including the Shahed-171/Simorgh and Shahed-191/Saegheh families.

Reuters reported in 2014 that Iran claimed a domestically built copy of the RQ-170 had flown.

Today, Iran is one of the leading manufacturers of suicide Shahed drones (besides Russia and Ukraine), which have wreaked havoc on U.S. military bases and allied countries. The U.S. is also ramping up its version of these drones called "Lucas."

Tyler Durden Sun, 05/31/2026 - 13:25

"It's All So Tiresome": UK's Social Media Ban Trudges Ever Onward

Authored by Kit Knightly via Off-Guardian.org,

The UK government’s “consultation” on social media harm is over, and – brace yourselves – it turns out they’re going to have to do something about it.

I know, I was shocked too.

The main talking point is that “social media is like cigarettes”. Everyone is saying that, it’s the meme of the day.

It’s a sentiment originally taken from a new report submitted to the consultation by the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges.

Titled “Growing up in an online world”, it contains this hilarious line in the foreword:

…there is, I think, an overwhelming consensus that excessive screen time can harm children and young people and we need to call this out unflinchingly rather than passively wait for someone else to prove causation”.

Which is a pretty neat summary of how our political system works in general, and certainly in this case: We don’t know if there’s even a problem yet, but by God we’re gonna do something about it.

That the something they end up doing makes them rich and powerful is just one of the curious coincidences tyrants can always rely on.

{Sidenote: This morning the BBC had “Overwhelimg consensus” in their headline on this story, but at some point the absurdity of that quote was realised, and the headline changed. Now there’s this disclaimer near the end: “There is no consensus among the wider scientific community that screen time overall is harmful to children.” Funny stuff.}

Elsewhere, the report wails about “a wave of radicalized children” who pose “a real risk to society”, and calls social media “an incredibly powerful and uncontrolled commercial detriment to health”.

In a similar vein, The Guardian is warning of a “tsunami of harm”, and has assembled an all-star cast of interested parties to talk up the scariness of social media meanness.

After meeting with “bereaved parents” earlier today, Keir Starmer has “vowed to take action”.

His potential rival for the leadership has been even more vocal. Political eunuch and leadership hopeful Wes Streeting is all over this, campaigning hard to be the next disposable suit full of bugger all to “lead the country”:

Big tech's behaviour has been akin to big tobacco, introducing an addictive and harmful product whilst avoiding regulation.

We’ve got to give our children their childhood back, and that starts with a social media ban for under-16s. pic.twitter.com/soRbjbHIsG

— Wes Streeting (@wesstreeting) May 26, 2026

He thinks a ban should be “just the start”:

Social media should be treated like tobacco – it’s extremely addictive, bad for our health, and big tech is borrowing the big tobacco playbook to avoid regulation. We’ve got to give our children their childhood back […] A ban for under-16s must be the start, not the end […]We have given the pen to tech moguls to write our future for us. It’s time to take the pen back.”

Streeting is an idiot whose ambition outweighs his intellect by a factor of ten, and who clearly doesn’t understand the rules of the game he’s playing.

Some political handler behind the scenes probably told him to go hard on this issue because it will make him look tough and assertive, but the likely truth is he’s being wheeled out as the extreme option so a “sensible middle ground” option – probably Andy Burnham – can enforce “common sense policies”.

What will those policies be? It doesn’t really matter, but we’ll get to that.

Technology Secretary Liz Kendall, notable only for garnering less than 5% of the vote in the 2015 leadership election, is out there promising “action”:

'The question isn't whether we are going to act, we will'

As a consultation on social media use for under-16s comes to an end Technology Secretary Liz Kendall told #BBCBreakfast the Government plans to take actionhttps://t.co/jJ6RakraWV pic.twitter.com/6lLD8yVoY9

— BBC Breakfast (@BBCBreakfast) May 26, 2026

…they haven’t decided what “action” yet, exactly but it’s definitely going to happen.

The Guardian has a handy list to choose from, including but not limited to:

– social media bans
– “digital curfews”
– “function limitations”
– age gating “addictive features”
– protecting children from personalised algorithms
– enforcing screen time limits.

Which one will it be?

Well let me answer that question with another question – Who cares?

The powers that be certainly don’t.

This is very much an “any colour you want so long as it’s black” situation.

Choose an outright ban – “Great, please submit your ID to prove you’re over 16 and exempt from the social media ban.”

Choose screen time limits – “Great, please submit your ID to prove you’re over 16 and exempt from screen time limitations.”

Choose digital curfews – “Great, please submit your ID to prove you’re over 16 and exempt from the digital curfew.”

Since all the proposed measures rely on age verification for enforcement, they all achieve the end goal: No more online anonymity, for kids or adults alike.

Debating the list is pointless, and making a choice counterproductive. It’s like choosing the colour of your electric chair: It makes no difference to the end result, but your entirely cosmetic choice lends tacit approval of the whole process.

We all know where this is going: Age gating everything, everywhere and then – eventually – digital ID.

It’s just…

…and you’re left wondering, who is this even for?

What is the point of this worn-out, unenthusiastic propaganda?

We know what they’re going to do, they have said they’re going to do it, and still they feel the need to play out this performative umming and erring.

Just get on with it.

All the people who don’t believe them will NEVER believe them, and all the poor fools who do believe them will always believe them.

So why carry on this absurd pretense?

It’s like when you’re watching a really dull movie – one that has telegraphed its “clever twist” in the first ten minutes – but is still insisting on dragging out the run time for two more hours of what the writers evidently consider skillful foreshadowing.

Or when you get a call from an unknown number, and some eager breathless voice announces “this is not a sales call”, before launching into a fifteen minute speech about double glazing or solar panels, and you’re just waiting for a pause long enough to say “no thanks”, and hang up.

It is a sales call, and you’ve known that from the beginning, and they know you know, but they can’t stop talking because then you’ll leave. They have to keep talking because they know you’re not listening.

So maybe that’s the answer. Maybe they can’t take a breath because people will hang up.

Tyler Durden Sun, 05/31/2026 - 08:10