Join Us at the 2023 World Economic Conference in Orlando, Florida!

? Dates: November 17, 18, and 19 ? Location: Orlando, Florida, USA (or tune in from home with our virtual ticket options)

Are you ready to unlock the future of economics and finance? Prepare for an unforgettable World Economic Conference experience in sunny Orlando, Florida! This premier event is your gateway to insights, networking, and valuable resources that will supercharge your understanding of the global economy.

?️ What’s Included for In-Person Attendees:

1. Event Admission: Enjoy reserved seating assigned based on the order of ticket sales, ensuring you have a prime view of every presentation.
2. Presentation Slides: Gain access to the presentation slides from all speakers, allowing you to delve deeper into the topics discussed.
3. Video Recording: Can’t make it to a session? No worries! You’ll receive access to video recordings of all conference presentations, so you can catch up at your convenience.
4. WEC Event App: Connect with the conference on a whole new level. Access presentation slides, bonus reports, recordings, and more via the official WEC Event App.
5. Bonus Conference Materials: Get a package of bonus conference-related materials, including exclusive bonus reports and videos (as provided by Martin Armstrong).
6. Morning Information Sessions: Don’t miss out on important morning information sessions, screened on-site in the meeting room on Saturday and Sunday.
7. Networking Opportunities: Exclusive access to the Event App Networking Feature allows you to connect with fellow attendees, both in-person and virtual, fostering valuable professional relationships.
8. Culinary Delights: Savor delicious breakfast and lunch on Saturday and Sunday, prepared to keep you energized throughout the day.
9. Cocktail Reception: Kick off the conference in style at our Friday evening cocktail reception. Meet and mingle with fellow attendees while enjoying refreshing drinks.
10. Swag Bag: As a token of our appreciation, each in-person attendee will receive a swag bag filled with goodies, including an Armstrong Economics notebook, pen, and an event collector’s mug!

Unable to travel? We also have two different ticket options for those wishing to attend virtually! 

Don’t miss this opportunity to be part of a global gathering of economic and financial minds. Secure your spot at the World Economic Conference in Orlando, Florida, and gain the knowledge, connections, and resources you need to thrive in the world of finance and economics.

Space is limited, so act now and reserve your seat! Visit our Events page to register and join us in sunny Orlando this November.

Now available at all major retailers!

The eBook will be available shortly.

The second edition of “The Plot to Seize Russia – The Untold History” is now available for purchase in paperback and hardcover on Amazon and Barnes and Noble. The ebook will be available shortly.

Book description:

“Take care of Russia,” Boris Yeltsin said as he departed his presidency in August 1999. These words were directed at current Russian president, Vladimir Putin. Yeltsin specifically picked Putin as his predecessor to prevent the takeover of Russia.

So, who was Yeltsin warning against? Newly declassified documents from the Clinton Administration prove that there was a plot to rig the Russian election of 2000. These never-before-seen documents confirm numerous attempts to implement pro-Western policies using the Russian oligarchy headed by Boris Berezovsky.

On the other side were the communists who desired a return to the glory days of the Soviet Union. As one of the largest international hedge fund managers, author Martin Armstrong found himself in the middle of perhaps the greatest espionage, or attempt at a regime change for Russia, in modern history.

The Plot to Seize Russia pulls back the curtain to expose the most extraordinary attempt to seize power in modern history, but with the pen rather than armies. These declassified documents reveal a plot that has altered our thinking about the relations between the United States and Russia. The thirst for power comes seething through every line of these papers that alter our perception of reality, change the course of history, and now threaten us with World War III.

After spending years defending him, campaigning for him, endorsing him, and standing beside him while anyone who questioned his fitness was attacked as a conspiracy theorist, Hillary Clinton now says Biden made a “terrible mistake” by running again. That is convenient, but the problem is that Biden did not act alone. The entire Democratic establishment knew exactly what was happening and saw his cognitive decline. They heard the incoherent speeches, watched the debates. Yet they all marched in lockstep behind a man they insisted was perfectly capable of serving another four years.

Clinton is really attempting to do is rewrite history. Biden did not force the Democratic Party to rally behind him. The party leadership, the donors, the consultants, the media allies, and every major power center in Washington actively protected him from criticism. Anyone who raised concerns about his age or cognitive condition was dismissed. They shut down a meaningful primary process and effectively told Democratic voters that there would be no debate, no competition, and no alternative. Then, after the disastrous debate exposed what millions of Americans had already seen with their own eyes, panic set in. The same people who spent years telling the public everything was fine suddenly discovered there was a problem.

Then came the greatest political bait-and-switch in modern American history. Biden withdrew only months before the election. Dems immediately installed Kamala Harris, leaving voters with a candidate they never selected. No one voted for Kamala during her first bid as presidential candidate but Democratic voters were told to accept the decision and remain silent. Clinton now argues that another Democrat could have beaten Trump.

“We would have had a real contest,” Clinton said about what would’ve happened if Biden didn’t run. “And very sadly I believe whoever emerged from that contest, whether it was the vice president or a governor or a senator or anybody else, would have beaten Donald Trump.”

Precisely why the Democrats lost: the party is completely out of touch with the wishes of the people. They abandoned working-class voters and became the party of divisive politics. They ignored growing concerns over inflation, immigration, crime, foreign policy, and economic insecurity. Biden spent his presidency pushing forth the globalist Build Back Better agenda, abandoning domestic interests. Democrats spent years lecturing the public instead of listening to them and then seemed shocked when voters revolted.

Clinton will think of losing to Trump on her deathbed; she simply cannot let it go. After 2016 there was a seemingly endless list of culprits. Now, after 2024, the blame falls squarely on Biden. Yet Clinton herself endorsed Biden’s campaign, defended him publicly, and later endorsed Kamala Harris when he withdrew. She did it for her career and not the people. The same political class that created the disaster is now trying to convince everyone they were warning about it all along. Americans are not that foolish. The public watched the cover-up in real-time. They watched party leaders insist Biden was fine. They watched them pivot overnight to Harris. They watched them demand loyalty at every stage. Now they want to pretend they were innocent bystanders. That may be the biggest insult of all.

Everyone expected Kevin Warsh to come into his first Federal Reserve meeting and immediately begin cutting rates because Trump put him in the chair. That was never going to happen. Markets have once again demonstrated they do not understand how interest rates actually function. The Federal Reserve left rates unchanged at 3.50% to 3.75%, but what mattered was not the decision itself. What mattered was the complete shift in tone.

The Fed removed language suggesting future easing and, for the first time this year, officials openly moved toward discussing potential rate hikes rather than cuts. Inflation is moving higher again, energy prices have surged amid Middle East tensions, and the bond market immediately understood what many economists still refuse to accept.

What I found far more interesting was Warsh’s attack on the institution itself. He announced five separate task forces to review how the Federal Reserve operates, how it communicates, how it measures inflation, how it uses economic data, how it manages its balance sheet, and how productivity and employment are evolving in a rapidly changing economy.

Warsh is openly signaling that he believes the Fed has become bloated, overly academic, and detached from reality. For years I have argued that governments and central banks are operating on outdated models that no longer reflect the world economy. Warsh appears to recognize the same problem.

The irony is that Warsh was selected largely because many believed he would be more dovish than Powell. Instead, his first meeting produced one of the most hawkish shifts we have seen this year. Officials now see inflation remaining elevated and several policymakers are looking toward possible rate increases before year-end. Bond yields jumped, the dollar strengthened, and equities sold off because traders suddenly realized the era of guaranteed rate cuts may be over.

Only 29% of Democrats say they are extremely or very proud to be American, compared with 90% of Republicans, based on a recent NBC poll. Among Americans aged 18-34, just 36% express strong pride in their country, compared with 75% among those over 65. Those numbers should concern anyone who understands history because they point to a crisis of confidence in the nation itself.

Most people blame Trump for dividing America, but the fracture began long before Trump entered politics. The split emerged during the Obama years as the Democratic Party gradually abandoned its traditional working-class foundation and embraced identity politics, globalism, and the expanding administrative state. The 2007.15 Economic Confidence Model turning point marked the beginning of a broader collapse in confidence across Western governments. The Great Recession weakened confidence and caused upheaval. The cohesion from the 9/11 Bush years had come to an end as war in the Middle East dragged on. By 2013 and 2014 the divisions were becoming increasingly visible. Trump’s election in 2016 did not create the divide. It exposed it.

What shocked the Democratic establishment was discovering that millions of Americans no longer shared the worldview being promoted by the media, academia, and Washington. Since then the separation has only accelerated. The old Democratic Party of labor unions, manufacturing workers, and middle-class families has increasingly been replaced by a coalition whose priorities are divisive identity politics.

People lost faith in Washington, but they still believed in America. The anger was directed toward politicians, bankers, and government institutions. Republicans blamed Democrats. Democrats blamed Republicans. The country was divided, but there was still a common identity underneath it all.

Then Trump arrived and the divide exploded. Politics stopped being about policy and became personal. COVID was the final nail in the coffin. Families stopped speaking to one another. Friendships ended, and neighbors viewed each other as enemies. Every election became a battle between good and evil. The left convinced itself that Trump supporters were destroying the country, while the right concluded that the establishment would do anything to remain in power. The left fractured and then divided as years of divisive race, gender, and sex-based policies caused the group to completely lose track of its messaging. The hostility reached levels not seen in modern American history.

Now we are witnessing another transformation. The divide is no longer simply between the left and the right. Increasingly, it is between the left and America itself. Look at the NBC numbers. Only 29% of Democrats say they are extremely or very proud to be American. Think about that for a moment. We are not talking about dissatisfaction with a president or Congress. We are talking about pride in the nation itself.

What makes this even more disturbing is that politicians have begun saying the quiet part out loud. We now have candidates openly declaring they do not support the United States, do not support the military, and look down on America itself. Twenty years ago such statements would have ended a political career overnight. It would have been unthinkable for either side to openly declare hostilities toward the nation they claim to represent. Universities have spent years teaching young people that America is uniquely evil, ironically shielding them from the realities of history. Activists portray the nation as fundamentally illegitimate. The result is exactly what this poll shows. A generation has been raised to believe that patriotism is evil while resentment toward their own country is somehow righteous.

A growing portion of society no longer believes America deserves to exist in its current form. The initial push boosted globalist morale, but we are left with a broken population that is too deep into self-loathing to be productive. This segment of the population is eager to vote for a pro-globalist, anti-America candidate because they want to see the nation fail. You are no longer debating tax rates or spending priorities. You are debating whether the country itself is worth preserving. That is a very dangerous place to be, and the poll numbers suggest we are moving deeper into that territory rather than away from it.

Kevin Warsh is now stepping into one of the most difficult jobs at a time when inflation is rising again, energy prices are climbing because of the Middle East conflict, and confidence in central banks remains fragile. What immediately stands out is that Warsh is not another Jerome Powell. He has spent years criticizing the Federal Reserve itself, arguing that many of today’s economic problems were created by central bank policy rather than solved by it.

One of Warsh’s most important positions is his rejection of the idea that inflation was merely the result of supply chain disruptions or temporary events. He has repeatedly argued that excessive government spending and Federal Reserve policy fueled inflation. Reuters summarized his position by noting that Warsh views inflation as a consequence of policy decisions and has been highly critical of the expansion of the Fed’s balance sheet. That is a significant departure from the excuses that dominated the discussion over the past several years.

What I find interesting is that Warsh appears determined to dismantle many of the communication tools that have defined modern central banking. He has criticized “forward guidance,” questioned the value of constant forecasts, and appears to favor a much less predictable Federal Reserve. Markets have become addicted to every word spoken by central bankers. Investors now spend more time trying to decipher press conferences than studying the underlying economy. Warsh seems to believe that central banks should stop pretending they can micromanage expectations years into the future.

When he was sworn in, Warsh pledged to “lead a reform-oriented Federal Reserve” while “learning from past successes and mistakes” and “escaping static frameworks and models.” The Federal Reserve has increasingly become an institution trapped by its own theories. The economy changes while the response remains the same.

The irony is that Trump may have selected someone who agrees with him about the failures of Powell and the Federal Reserve, yet disagrees with him on the solution. Warsh believes the Fed lost credibility because it waited too long to fight inflation. Trump wants growth and lower borrowing costs. Those objectives can coexist for a while, but if inflation remains elevated because of war, energy prices, or government spending, Warsh may find himself making decisions Trump does not like.

The larger issue is that no Fed chairman controls the business cycle. This is where politicians always get it wrong. Trump wanted lower rates. Biden wanted lower rates. Every administration eventually wants lower rates. Yet interest rates ultimately move with confidence and capital flows. The mainstream Keynesian view has always assumed rates are simply a policy tool. History shows something very different. Rates generally rise with strong markets and confidence and decline during bear markets and economic contractions. The Federal Reserve follows the trend far more often than it creates it.

Warsh enters office during what our models have projected as a Panic Cycle year. The international war cycle is turning up, government debt continues expanding, and geopolitical uncertainty is increasing. Investors expecting a magic solution from a new Fed chairman will likely be disappointed. Warsh may reform how the Fed communicates. He may challenge some of the assumptions that dominated the Powell era. But the real issue remains confidence. If confidence in government continues declining while geopolitical tensions continue rising into 2027, then no central banker will be able to prevent the consequences. The Fed does not control the cycle. The cycle controls the Fed.

Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko said what many leaders will not say publicly. Speaking to Al-Arabiya English, he accused Israel of carrying out a “Holocaust” in Gaza and said: “They already have a bad reputation in the world because of the bombing of Gaza.” He added that Gaza had been “wiped off the face of the earth” and warned that “there is no military solution.” Coming from Lukashenko, the West will dismiss it immediately because they hate the messenger. But that does not erase the condition of Gaza.

The reported Palestinian death toll surpassed 73,000, with more than 173,000 wounded. Save the Children reported in 2025 that more than 20,000 children had been killed. UNICEF said more than 50,000 children had been reportedly killed or injured. Hospitals, schools, homes, roads, water systems, and basic infrastructure were destroyed. This was not a precision operation. Gaza has been completely removed from the map. The Israeli people do NOT support their government and are largely appalled at what Netanyahu has done.

Nearly the entire population of Gaza, roughly 2.1 million people, has been displaced at least once, making it one of the largest displacement crises in modern history. Entire cities were reduced to rubble. Some estimates indicate that well over half of all structures in Gaza were damaged or destroyed.

Netanyahu claimed the goal was to destroy Hamas. That did not happen. Hamas still exists. Analysts have continued to warn that Hamas retained operational capability and would resist disarmament. So what was accomplished? Gaza was destroyed, children were buried, civilians were displaced, and yet the organization Israel claimed it would eliminate remains part of the discussion. That is not victory. You cannot bomb an ideology out of existence.

There has long been speculation surrounding the Ben Gurion Canal project, a proposed alternative to the Suez Canal connecting the Red Sea to the Mediterranean. Released documents prove that this plan has been in the works for decades. When Gaza is reduced to ruins and then people begin discussing strategic corridors, reconstruction plans, resorts, ports, and new trade routes, the public naturally asks who benefits. Lukashenko himself criticized what he described as plans to build a resort on land where people were killed. But the main objective is providing the West with a new artery to trade in the Middle East.

Revealing the horrors of Gaza is punishable by death. Gaza became the deadliest conflict for reporters ever recorded. The Committee to Protect Journalists, the International Federation of Journalists, Reporters Without Borders, and numerous press freedom organizations have all documented unprecedented losses among media workers. Depending on the methodology used, estimates range from roughly 190 to more than 260 journalists and media workers killed since the war began, the overwhelming majority of them Palestinian. The Costs of War Project described Gaza as the deadliest conflict for journalists in modern history. Many were killed while reporting from hospitals, refugee camps, media tents, and civilian areas. Others died alongside their families in airstrikes.

There are plenty of on-the-ground journalists in every corner of conflict. The percentage of journalists who died reporting on Gaza does not coincide with other conflicts. Rumors have swirled that many of these journalists were deliberately targeted, and let’s be honest, such a concept should not be considered a conspiracy or a far-fetched proposition for a government intent on a scorched-earth policy.

Gaza is no longer the daily story because the cycle has shifted to Iran, Lebanon, and the next war. The public is emotionally exhausted, the cameras move, and the destroyed land remains behind. But history does not forget. The war cycle is not finished. It is expanding. Gaza was not the end of the story. It was a warning of what comes next when leaders believe war is policy and civilians are merely collateral damage. Is Lebanon next?

What concerns me going forward is Lebanon. The negotiations with Iran were reportedly supposed to include broader regional de-escalation, yet Israeli officials have repeatedly stated that Israel intends to maintain freedom of military action in Lebanon and reserves the right to continue operations regardless of any agreement reached elsewhere. If a peace deal leaves Iran standing but the fighting simply shifts north into Lebanon, then peace has not been achieved at all.

Few people seem to remember that the United States spent more than $1 billion constructing what is expected to become the second-largest U.S. embassy complex in the world in Lebanon, a 43-acre fortress that dwarfs most government facilities in the country. The timing and scale of that project have raised questions for years about Washington’s long-term strategic expectations for the region. The cycle continues to suggest that the Middle East is moving through a broader period of instability rather than approaching a lasting settlement. Gaza has been devastated, Iran remains unresolved, and Lebanon increasingly appears positioned as the next potential flashpoint. The danger is that politicians will declare peace while the war simply moves to the next battlefield.

Hungary’s Viktor Orban represented the most visible challenge to the European Union’s vision of centralized political authority. He rejected migrant quotas, opposed sanctions that damaged European economies, resisted deeper integration, and repeatedly argued that Hungary’s government should answer to Hungarian voters rather than unelected officials in Brussels. That made him a threat. Not because he was unique, but because he demonstrated that a nationalist government could survive repeated attempts to isolate it.

A constitutional amendment has been written specifically to prevent Orban from ever returning to office. Anyone who has served as prime minister for a total of eight years or more “cannot be elected prime minister.” The amendment applies retroactively all the way back to May 2, 1990, counting every year already served as prime minister. Orban has already served roughly twenty years across his various terms in office, making him permanently ineligible the moment the amendment takes effect. If the Hungarian people were to decide four years from now that they wanted Orban back, they would no longer have that choice.

The political establishment is essentially saying that voters are free to choose their leaders, provided they do not choose that leader. For a European Union that constantly lectures others about democracy and the rule of law, rewriting a constitution to retroactively eliminate the most significant nationalist figure in modern Hungarian politics raises profound questions about whether elections are intended to reflect the will of the people or merely ratify outcomes approved by the political class.

The pattern extends far beyond Hungary. Romania’s election was overturned after a nationalist candidate emerged victorious. Marine Le Pen has faced relentless legal battles as her support climbed in France. Germany’s establishment increasingly treats AfD as a political problem to be contained rather than an opposition movement to be debated. In Greece, the debt crisis revealed how quickly democratic outcomes could be discarded when voters challenged the policies demanded by Brussels. Different countries. Different politicians. The same conflict.

The European Union has increasingly come to view nationalism itself as the enemy. Nationalism places loyalty to country above loyalty to institutions. It assumes governments should act in the interests of their own citizens first. Brussels operates from the opposite premise. Power must flow upward toward centralized institutions. National sovereignty becomes an obstacle to integration rather than the foundation of democracy. This is why every major nationalist movement eventually finds itself in conflict with the European establishment.

The sovereign debt crisis, migration crisis, energy crisis, and now the war cycle have all exposed the fault lines beneath the European project. The EU mistakenly thinks it can survive with enough cohesion through coercion, or that confidence can somehow be restored if the vote is suppressed. Removing Orban or any pro-nationalist candidate will not prevent the inevitable collapse of the European Union.

QUESTION: I read Trump’s comment to Netanyahu in Axios. You have been the voice of reason. I argued with someone who said you were anti-sematic for criticizing Netanyahu.  They criticized Obama so I asked then you must be a racist. It went right over their head. I know you said before that you had two Jewish uncles who married into your family one on each side. Such people are idiots. My question is do you think this will last?

OB

ANSWER: Well, since the latest Israeli poll shows 61% of Israelis want Netanyahu to retire, does that mean 61% of Israelis are anti-sematic? This is a Neocon tactic and anyone who spouts out this BS, one must question their mental capacity to be a free thinker. The EU does the same thing that anyone who does not bad-mouth Putin they call a Putin Supporter. The Neocons always try to prevent any communication with the opposition out of fear there could be a peace deal.

Trump has the midterms and Netanyahu is likely to run for reelection. Netanyahu is being criticized for achieving nothing. He needs a military victory. Trump needs to get the hell out of Iran for the midterms. There is a serious conflict of interest here politically. Trump has at last discovered the real Netanyahu.

Neither Netanyahu nor Zelensky care about the world. Both are psychopaths’ who are only interested in their personal self-interests. The institutional report we produced on the Sovereign Debt Crisis has blown the doors off of what is really going on behind the scenes. I believe that Iran will be able to charge fees to use the Strait of Hurmuz the same as Turkey charges fees for boats and ships using its key waterways, specifically the Bosphorus and Dardanelles straits. Egypt charges for passage through their Suez Canal as does Panama. Iran, I believe, has agreed not to pursue a nuclear weapon. I believe that Iran will have access to $300 billion in reparations for rebuilding infrastructure. Sanctions ill be eventually lifted.

My problem with both Netanyahu and Zelensky is that neither is interested in peace. The alternative  is endless war and the only way to win is genocide – the total destruction of your opponent. Ukraine cannot utterly destroy Russia any more than Israel can obliterate Iran. Neither will accept that because they believe that they can lure in other powers to achieve their goal. Zelensky want NATO to wage war against Russia and has even advocated a pre-emptive nuclear strike on Moscow. Netanyahu needs the US to wage war against Iran and the danger remains that he has nukes and can use them under the pretense that it would be a pre-emptive strike.

In 2024, in his Knesset speech, Netanyahu said: “I’ve been warning about Iran for 30 years.”  It was reported on March 3rd, during a visit to a site struck by an Iranian missile, Netanyahu stated: “We read in this week’s Torah portion, ‘Remember what Amalek did to you.’ We remember—and we act.”

In 1 Samuel 15:2-3, God gives King Saul a specific, direct order to carry out this command. The prophet Samuel relays the message:

“This is what the LORD Almighty says: ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys. ‘”

The harshness of the command in 1 Samuel has disturbed Jewish scholars for centuries, leading to various interpretations that move beyond a literal call for genocide. If Netanyahu believes that genocide is the command of God, that is NOT in the self-interest of the United States. He knows you cannot accomplish regime change from the air. This is the very first time when we are in a partnership with another country who is really calling the shots here where the interests of Netanyahu are by no means the same national interest of the United States.

I have tried my best to reveal the real agenda of both Netanyahu and Zelensky. Both are hellbent on trying to create world war to destroy their hated opponents and will say anything to achieve that goal.

To answer you question, I believe that Netanyahu will not yield and I would still expect tensions to rise again especially in August and this may escalate into the first quarter of 2027. I have been trying to keep the US out of this mess. I will probably fail, but nonetheless, I have to give it a shot.

There is something that does not add up. If the objective is peace, then why was one of the most contentious parts of the negotiations the demand that hostilities in Lebanon also come to an end? Reports indicate that the U.S.-Iran framework includes de-escalation in Lebanon. Yet almost immediately Israeli officials declared they would not withdraw from southern Lebanon and would continue to reserve the right to act independently. Defense Minister Israel Katz stated plainly Israel would remain in Lebanon, Syria, and Gaza regardless of the agreement.

This is where the entire story begins to unravel. Trump has been publicly insisting that Netanyahu will have to accept whatever agreement Washington negotiates, reportedly saying: “I call all the shots. He doesn’t call the shots.” At the very same time, reports emerged that Trump was furious over Israeli actions in Beirut that nearly derailed the negotiations altogether. According to multiple reports, strikes in Lebanon came dangerously close to collapsing the entire framework before it was finalized.

The issue is not Iran. The issue is that Netanyahu appears to have viewed this conflict very differently from Washington. Reports suggest that Netanyahu hoped military pressure would fundamentally weaken Iran’s position throughout the region and perhaps even contribute to regime change. A negotiated settlement that leaves Iran standing, releases frozen assets, reopens the Strait of Hormuz, and begins another round of diplomacy was never the outcome many hardliners were seeking. That is why Israeli officials immediately began attacking the agreement while insisting they would maintain military freedom of action in Lebanon.

The uncomfortable reality in Washington is that every politician knows exactly how powerful the pro-Israel lobbying network has become. AIPAC has spent decades directing enormous sums into congressional races. Politicians on both sides of the aisle understand the consequences of crossing that machine. Whether one supports Israel or not, pretending this influence does not exist is absurd. Entire careers have been built and destroyed based upon foreign policy positions relating to Israel. The result is that American politicians often place the interests of foreign conflicts ahead of the interests of American taxpayers who will ultimately pay the bill. The growing divide between Trump and Netanyahu demonstrates that even within traditionally pro-Israel circles, there are limits to how much foreign policy can be subordinated to another nation’s strategic objectives.

The Economic Confidence Model and the war cycle never suggested that 2026 would bring peace. Quite the opposite. This is a Panic Cycle year. The international war cycle turns up into 2027, with 2028 bringing economic stress and civil unrest before the major geopolitical turning point into 2029. People keep searching for a treaty that ends the crisis. That is not how these cycles work. The danger comes when political leaders become prisoners of their own narratives. Netanyahu has spent years presenting Iran as the defining threat of our time. Leaders who build their careers on war rarely become the architects of peace. That is why I remain skeptical. The greatest threat to this agreement may not come from Tehran. It may come from those who never wanted a negotiated settlement in the first place.