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.

Wholesale prices rose 0.7% in February, more than double expectations and the largest monthly increase since mid-2025. On a year-over-year basis, PPI is now running at 3.4%, the highest level in roughly a year. This is not a sign that inflation has been defeated. It is a clear indication that price pressures are building again at the wholesale level.

What matters here is that PPI is a leading indicator. These are the costs businesses face before anything reaches the consumer. Manufacturers, transport companies, and wholesalers absorb these increases initially, but they do not simply eat those costs. They pass them along. What we are looking at is the early stage of future consumer inflation already forming in the pipeline.

Goods prices jumped 1.1%, the largest increase since 2023, driven by rising food and energy costs. Food prices alone posted sharp gains, with certain categories like vegetables showing significant spikes. Energy also turned higher again, with gasoline and fuel costs rising. Services inflation continues to push higher as well, rising 0.5% for the month. This marks several consecutive months of firm increases, including sharp moves in areas such as lodging. This is not isolated inflation. It is widespread and embedded throughout the system.

The timing is critical. This report does not yet fully reflect the geopolitical escalation that began at the end of February. Since then, oil prices have surged, and energy costs are already moving higher into March. Energy feeds into everything. Transportation becomes more expensive, production costs increase, and ultimately, the price of food rises as distribution costs climb.

This is how inflation returns in waves. It begins at the wholesale level, then moves into consumer prices. Even mainstream economists are now acknowledging that the inflationary impact from rising energy prices and geopolitical tension will begin to show up more clearly in the coming months. That means this report is likely showing the starting point rather than the peak. This is the environment where stagflation takes shape. Costs rise while growth weakens, and policymakers find themselves unable to respond effectively because the source of inflation is no longer monetary policy but geopolitical events.

From a cyclical perspective, this is exactly what we should expect at this stage. As we move through this period, war and geopolitical instability become dominant forces driving economic outcomes. Energy shocks, supply disruptions, and shifting capital flows create volatility that central banks cannot manage. The mistake governments always make is believing they can fine-tune the economy with interest rates. They cannot control geopolitical events, and they cannot prevent the ripple effects that follow rising energy prices.

What the Bank of England is now proposing are changes to ensure banks can actually use their liquidity during a crisis. For years, regulators claimed the system was safe because banks were holding what they defined as high-quality liquid assets. Now they are effectively admitting those assets may not function when they are needed most.

This comes directly from the lessons of 2023. Silicon Valley Bank and Credit Suisse did not collapse because there was no money in the system. They collapsed because confidence broke and liquidity vanished in real time. Assets that were supposed to be safe could not be sold without losses, and funding disappeared almost overnight.

The Bank of England is now requiring banks to simulate rapid outflows over the course of a single week. That is not a normal recession scenario. That is a bank run. They understand that capital no longer moves slowly. In a digital world, money leaves instantly, and once that process begins, it accelerates. Central banks throughout the world now realize that they are looking at a liquidity crisis.

The mistake policymakers continue to make is believing liquidity is something they can regulate. Liquidity is a function of confidence. Once institutions begin to question counterparty risk, they stop lending. They hoard capital. They shorten the duration. That is when the system freezes, regardless of how much money central banks inject.

At the same time, central banks have been removing liquidity through quantitative tightening. They expanded their balance sheets for over a decade, and now they are reversing that process. This drains reserves from the system and increases stress in funding markets. Even officials have warned there will be disruptions as liquidity is withdrawn. So on one side, they are draining liquidity, and on the other, they are trying to redesign emergency mechanisms to deal with the consequences. That contradiction is the entire story.

Growth in the UK remains weak, inflation is still persistent, and rising energy costs driven by geopolitical tensions continue to pressure the economy. Banks are already reacting by tightening lending and becoming more defensive.

What the Bank of England is really saying, without saying it outright, is that they do not believe the system will function properly under stress. They are attempting to fix a structural flaw that cannot be fixed with regulation. The entire framework assumes markets behave rationally during crises, but history shows the opposite.

Every major financial event follows the same pattern. First, there are quiet warnings like this. Then there are policy adjustments. Then restrictions begin. Finally, when confidence breaks, capital moves and the system shifts very quickly.

This is not about a lack of money. It is about a lack of trust. Once that turns, liquidity disappears regardless of how much central banks try to inject. What we are seeing now is the early stage of that transition, and the Bank of England has just confirmed they know it.

For years, the press has insisted that every conflict must be viewed in isolation: Ukraine is separate from the Middle East, China is separate from Russia, and Iran is simply another regional crisis. But history rarely works that way. When historians look back at major wars, they rarely begin them on the date politicians announce them. World War I did not suddenly begin with a single shot in Sarajevo, and World War II was not simply the invasion of Poland. The causes were decades in the making. The uncomfortable reality is that when historians eventually write about this period, many will likely conclude that what we are witnessing today is the early phases of a world war.

One of the greatest mistakes made after the Cold War was the assumption that the ideological struggle had been permanently resolved. The collapse of the Soviet Union was treated as a final victory rather than the end of a phase. Yet no durable geopolitical framework was created to integrate the defeated power structure into a stable international system. After World War II, the United States and its allies invested enormous resources into rebuilding Europe and Japan through the Marshall Plan and establishing institutions such as the United Nations and the Bretton Woods financial order. Those efforts created stability and prevented the reemergence of the same ideological conflict that produced two world wars. After the Cold War, nothing comparable was built.

Instead, Russia and other former Soviet states were left to endure economic collapse, political humiliation, and social chaos during the 1990s. Entire populations watched their national power evaporate while Western institutions expanded eastward. Whether one agrees with the political narratives or not is irrelevant. What matters historically is that unresolved tensions remained. Just as the Treaty of Versailles failed to resolve the deeper contradictions after World War I, the end of the Cold War left grievances that continued to grow beneath the surface.

Now those unresolved tensions are resurfacing simultaneously across multiple regions. Russia is locked in confrontation with the West in Ukraine. China is challenging the global economic and military balance in the Pacific. The Middle East is once again erupting, with Iran increasingly aligned with Russia and China as geopolitical pressure mounts. These are not isolated events. They are overlapping theaters of strategic competition that increasingly resemble the early stages of great-power conflict.

The Economic Confidence Model has long projected that the period around 2026 would mark a geopolitical turning point. That does not mean a sudden global war declared overnight. Historically, major conflicts emerge through a series of regional crises that gradually merge into a broader struggle. The Panic Cycle expected in 2027, and the larger turning point into 2028, suggest rising volatility and confrontation across multiple fronts. What we are seeing today fits that pattern perfectly. If history is any guide, future historians may not mark the beginning of the next world war with a single event. They may instead look back and say the war had already begun during this decade but we simply failed to recognize it at the time.

COMMENT: Marty, you were the first to point to Netanyahu was a neocon and they were using him to infiltrate the White House last year. You seem to be put in the middle of everything all the time. I had no idea Netanyahu went to school in Philadelphia, and that’s how you knew. Then you knew the Kristols. You know Europe well and have commented on how there has been a huge increase in anti-Americanism here, and you also warned that there would be a rise in antisemitism. It is questionable who is hated most here, Trump or Netanyahu. Everything has played out as Socrates has projected.

Al

REPLY:  This is all Netanyahu’s scheme, along with the American Neocons. Rubio, who is a Cuban, is now trying to cause regime change in Cuba. These people will never stop interfering in other countries. I will do an update on the private blog. This on the one hand is going well for them, as they may have devastated the Iranian military, but there appears to be no regime change for the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). The IRGC is held together by religion, and this is playing right into the prophecies. The Israeli decapitation strategy of leadership is not weakening the government at this stage; it has stiffened its resolve. The Ayatollah has rejected a ceasefire. He has to know that Trump is on a short leash, and the longer this goes on, the worse it will be for him and in the midterms. The latest polls show he is -27 points just with independents. They never fogave Bush Sr for raising taxes after he said read my lips, no new taxes. Trump swore no more neocon endless wars.

The Japanese kamikaze Pilots were told to fly into American ships. They believed that the emperor was god so you do as god tells you. In the Middle East, individuals who carry out suicide bombings generally do not believe they are committing suicide, which is strictly forbidden in Islam. Instead, they believe they are performing an act of martyrdom (istishhād), a sacred duty of self-sacrifice in the path of God (fi sabil Allah) that promises great rewards in the afterlife. It is crucial to understand that this interpretation is highly contested and rejected by the vast majority of mainstream Muslim scholars and communities worldwide. It is essential to understand that the beliefs described above are based on interpretations of Islamic texts that are overwhelmingly rejected by mainstream Islamic scholarship.

This is what the Neocons fail to understand. You CANNOT judge an enemy based on your beliefs. All that matters is what THEY believe – not you. They underestimated Iran and they assumed that they would simply mine the Straut of Hormuz. The decision making in the war leaves a lot to be questioned.

The Israeli military killed Iranian Intelligence Minister Esmail Khatib, the latest in a series of high-profile killings of Iranian leaders that have worked to destabilize the nation’s institutions and industry as the U.S.-Israeli war with Iran intensifies. This has been their agenda to assassinate the leaders. They did that with Hammas, Hezbollah, Syra, Libya, and Iraq. This same strategy is now being deployed in Iran.

Here is the problem. So far Trump has not been attacking the Iranian regular army. Perhaps someone has learned a lesson from Iraq. You cannot simply destroy everything for then what comes at the end is sheer chaos. What is critical is that the main institutions are left intact for a post-war situation. Assuming the Islamic Republic collapses, the people need to have the infrastructure intact to form a normal government. If they leave Iran as the did Iraq, Sudan, Libya, Syria, etc., then the violence will only resurface from the chaos. There will be radical elements the surface just as ISIS in the aftermath of Iraq.

A rare written statement from Iran’s new supreme leader, Ayatollah Mojtaba Khamenei, promised retaliation for the killing of the nation’s top security official, Ali Larijani, saying, “All blood has its price that the criminal murderers of the martyrs must pay soon.” Because the IRGC is hard core religious, this makes it impossible to see them take some sort of leadership role. The best we can hope for is someone from the regular army rises up, but that could also end up in civil war.

So far, Trump has avoided not just attacking the regular army, but the institutions that will be needed postwar. There is no intention to occupy Iran as took place in Iraq. Trump has also not destroyed the pipelines of Iran understanding that a postwar economy will need the oil exports to rebuild. The biggest crisis that I see is Netanyahu who seems to want genocide in Iran and the real risk here is that he can act in his own self-interest seeking to keep Trump engaged if not drag him in all the way with ground troops. My concern is that Trump is NOT fully in charge for Netanyahu cannot be counted on for honest intelligence any more than the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. I knew Bill Kristol. He even spoke at one of our conference in the ’90s. If I remember correctly, he said taking out Iraq was to secure the future of Israel. He did write the book to justify that war.

In 2004, allegations surfaced that Iran was pursuing a nuclear weapons program, which was allegedly forged by Netanyahu to justify invading Iran back then. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) found NO credible evidence of such activities after 2003. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu later claimed that Iran had lied about its nuclear ambitions, presenting documents in 2018 that he asserted were proof of a secret nuclear weapons program.

Joe Kent, the director of the National Counterterrorism Center, resigned on Tuesday in protest against the war on Iran. “Iran posed no imminent threat to our nation,” Kent wrote. So, what, in his estimation, was the reason for this war? Simple: The Israelis wanted it, and they get what they want. Of course, the Trump Administration is doing everything it can to now discredit Kent. Iran may be more of an existential threat to Israel, but the Iranian threat to U.S. civilians, service personnel, and interests abroad is constant and has been since 1979. They have cleverly switched the iss that Iran did not present a threat to the United States. They are claiming it was a threat only to those stationed in the region. The point is that the ONLY way a president can act without a declaration of war from Congress is to respond to a immediate threat. This is always the excuse for they used that against Iraq that they had weapons on mass destruction and it was imminent that they would attack the USA.

In 2002, Netanyahu addressed the United States Congress, saying Israel is certain Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction and that America ‘must do something about this.’ He also said the same about Iran. Netanyahu has been pitching this same story since 2002. This is his personal vendetta and it has cost America billions and approximately 4,492 U.S. servicemembers were killed during the Iraq War from 2003 to 2011. Additionally, around 32,292 were wounded in the conflict. All for Netanyahu’s vendetta. I had family members who fought in that war. They were not too happy when they found out it was all a lie. This is not even for Israel. This is for one man who has admitted he has sought the destruction of Iran for 40 years.

I like Vance, but I think he has an obligation to look at the facts. When Gabbard said Iran had no nuclear program, Trump said he had different intelligence and that was from Netanyahu. I think it is time to interrogate Netanyahu for he is also putting Israel at risk for his insane personal vendetta.

Let’s be real. Iran is believed to possess enough enriched uranium to potentially build a nuclear weapon if it chose to. But even if Iran suddenly produced a bomb, nuclear deterrence and the risk of massive retaliation from countries like the United States or Israel would likely prevent it from ever being used. They furthermore lack the ability to make a bomb much different from what was dropped on Japan, but lack the ability to deliver such a bomb. Yet Gabbard in her written submission to Congress admitted that the 2025 strike obliterated Iran’s nuclear program and that there was no effort to restart it. There was no imminent threat. May are starting to see this as a war for Netanyahu, not for the United States. This was an unprovoked action to fulfill Netanyahu’s 50 year dream of destroying Iran. That is the real danger here that he started this war for personal reasons and there is a risk that he will act unilaterally to prevent any short-term end to this war.

For Iran, the UAE is a prime location where strikes can simultaneously pressure Washington, hit the Switzerland of the Middle East, and disrupt global energy flows. Thanks to the regulations and Marxist agenda in the EU, capital has been fleeing to UAE. Attacking Dubai unsettles international finance and corporates, and generate worldwide attention. We had to move our people out of our Dubai office as well.

Iran can inflict maximum regional and global pain, testing UAE that has positioned itself as the Gulf’s safest bridge between East and West, and the future of the region for finance, logistics, aviation and technology. There are many foreigners living in Dubai.

While there is a shot that March will remain as the high in oil for right now and there could be up to a 2 to 3 month correction, this does not appear to be over and we can still see an escalation during the summer from June into September.

With NATO refusing to join Trump in Iran, there is now a reasonable risk that Trump will abandon Ukraine and let Europe fund that one.

Alberta Separation is deeply emotional for many people, yet at the same time, INEVITABLE, given the global trend that is becoming highly influential. I have warned that the corruption within government is always what brings down governments for thousands of years. Once a centralized government seizes power, it cannot resist exercising more and more power. This will always lead to corruption in republican forms of government, ultimately bribing people in office to do as they desire. We are witnessing this not just in Canada, but also in how the federal government was pushing the globalist agenda of climate change, attacking Alberta, and even flying in a 16-year-old to tell people to surrender their jobs.

Centralized governments inevitably lead toward core Marxism, for that never benefits the people, but yields more power for the state. This always leads to the idea that the government can control society. Taxation and regulation rise, and this becomes the seed of corruption. We see that in the EU, as even Merz of Germany has now publicly criticized the EU over its migration policies. What began as a trade partnership has evolved into a centralized dictatorial government seeking total power over every aspect of European life.

We have seen this trend in the United States. Washington seeks to supersede state policies, even though individual states were promised the right to form the United States. Canada has suffered the same fate. The central bank no longer cares about regions and will raise rates based on inflationary trends in the East. In the USA, we have referred to this as the Texas/NY Arbitrage. When Texas is booming, that leads to commodity inflation, and NY suffers with rising interest rates. In Canada, there are regional economic differences, which is why centralized governments always overstep their authority, because it becomes about their power rather than about managing the different economies within the nation as a whole.

While the issue becomes emotional for some, who see the nation state as their identity, like a sports team, others see the practical individual test – what do I get out of this? All nations collapse and break apart because centralized government is always inefficient. This is what brought down Communism, and we can see it causing tension already within the EU as the government has interfered in the cultural issues of member states with its migration policy. It is inevitable that a centralized government that thinks it is in charge becomes increasingly authoritarian and always seeks more power when a crisis arises, claiming it could have prevented the event if it had just had a little more power.

Special Report on the Future of Alberta …… $195.00

???? CUBA'S POWER GRID COLLAPSES UNDER STRAIN

Cuba is dealing with a brutal blackout crisis, with power outages lasting up to 20 hours a day. The island’s electrical system is falling apart, leaving many in the dark for weeks.

U.S. sanctions are making things worse, with oil… https://t.co/E6loI6K2rB pic.twitter.com/ExbzIDLjFb

— Mario Nawfal (@MarioNawfal) January 28, 2026

What we are witnessing in Cuba right now is the same failed policy recycled once again, dressed up under a different administration, with the same predictable outcome. The power grid collapsed, millions were left in the dark, food supply chains broke down, and the government blamed the United States while Washington pretended this was somehow a strategy for freedom. I have written extensively about sanctions in my reports, especially regarding Cuba, and the historical record is clear. Sanctions do not topple regimes, rather, they punish the people and strengthen the government.

Cuba’s national grid has collapsed again, leaving the entire island without power, and this is directly tied to the U.S. oil blockade. The United States has effectively cut off fuel supplies by seizing shipments and pressuring other nations not to sell oil to Cuba. No fuel, no electricity, no economy. Hospitals struggle, the food that remains spoils, transportation halts, and the population is pushed into desperation. This is exactly what sanctions are designed to do, collapse the economy from the outside.

Cuba has not received meaningful fuel shipments in months, and outages have stretched beyond 12 hours a day before culminating in total blackout events. The country relies heavily on imported oil, historically from Venezuela, and once that supply was cut, the entire system began to fail. This is what happens when you deliberately choke off energy to an island nation with aging infrastructure.

I have said many times that sanctions are the modern form of siege warfare. In ancient times, you surrounded a city and starved it. Today, you cut off energy, block trade, and restrict access to capital. The outcome is identical. The population suffers first, not the leadership. In fact, sanctions often strengthen the regime because they provide a convenient external enemy to blame. The government tightens control, suppresses dissent, and survives while the people pay the price. We saw this in Cuba after the collapse of the Soviet Union. We saw it in Iraq during the 1990s. We have seen it repeatedly, and yet policymakers continue to act as if this time will be different.

The economic damage extends far beyond electricity. The fuel shortage has crippled agriculture, disrupted water systems, and undermined food distribution. Garbage collection stops, public transport collapses, and businesses shut down because they cannot operate without power. This is systemic economic destruction and the civilians are the real victims.

Sanctions allow governments to appear strong without committing to direct military action. They shift the burden of conflict onto civilians while avoiding the immediate costs of war. But make no mistake, economically this is war. It is simply war by other means. You cannot force regime change by collapsing an economy from the outside. All you do is create human suffering and entrench the very system you claim to oppose.

? TRUMP BIG STATEMENT ON CUBA ?

TRUMP CALLED U.S. ACTION IN CUBA AN “HONOR,” AMID THE ISLAND’S ONGOING ENERGY & ECONOMIC CRISIS.

THE REMARK IS SPARKING DEBATE OVER U.S. POLICY & INTERVENTION.

TRUMP MAY APPOINT NEW… Show more https://t.co/DMGLF8eV3M pic.twitter.com/F49PviQu9r

— Money Ape (@TheMoneyApe) March 17, 2026

What makes this even more dangerous is the rhetoric now coming directly from the White House. President Trump has openly stated that the United States may soon have “the honor of taking Cuba” and even declared, “I can do anything I want” when referring to the island. He has also floated the idea of a “friendly takeover” while describing Cuba as a failing nation that is on the brink of collapse. This is regime change language, and it comes at the exact moment the country’s power grid has collapsed due to a U.S.-enforced oil blockade.

They always sell it as helping the people, but the reality is that cutting off oil shipments, threatening tariffs on any nation that supplies fuel, and collapsing an entire energy grid is nothing short of siege warfare.

When a government fails to properly compensate its military, loyalty begins to fracture. From the late Roman Empire, when unpaid legions turned on the state, to more modern examples in which soldiers defected or abandoned regimes under economic stress, the outcome is always the same. You can maintain power through force for a time, but if the men holding the guns begin to question their future, the system becomes unstable from within.

Now look at Iran. The data is staggering when you compare military pay to the broader economy. Conscripts earn roughly $60 to $180 per month, while the average income in Iran ranges from about $150 to $250 per month. In real terms, due to currency collapse and inflation, average wages have fallen to roughly $120 per month in purchasing power. That means many soldiers are effectively earning at or below the poverty line. Even IRGC personnel, often seen as the elite force, have reported salaries around $300 per month, which is still modest compared to skilled civilian professions.

At the same time, Iran has a compulsory military system. All men at age 18 are required to serve roughly 18 months to two years, and they have no real choice in where they are deployed. This is not a purely voluntary force motivated by pay or career advancement. It is a system built on obligation, reinforced by religious ideology, and sustained through control. The Revolutionary Guard, in particular, is not just a military institution; it is a political and religious arm designed to protect the Islamic system itself.

This is where religion becomes critical. In Iran, the military, especially the IRGC, is tied directly to the preservation of the Islamic Revolution. Loyalty is not simply to the state, it is framed as loyalty to God, to the system, and to the survival of the revolution. That ideological component compensates for the lack of financial incentive. Historically, regimes that cannot afford to pay their military rely increasingly on ideology, fear, or both. The problem is that ideology alone does not pay for food, housing, or families. When economic conditions deteriorate, even deeply ideological forces begin to crack.

There is already evidence of strain. Inflation has eroded wages dramatically, government salaries have not kept pace, and economic frustration has spread across all sectors, including the military. At the same time, Iran has been known to pay significantly higher salaries to proxy fighters abroad than to its own domestic forces, creating resentment within the ranks. This imbalance has historically been one of the most dangerous factors for any regime, because it signals to soldiers that their sacrifice is not valued equally.

History is very clear on what happens next if these trends continue. In the late Roman Empire, unpaid soldiers began to declare their own emperors. During the French Revolution, economic hardship within the military contributed to the collapse of royal authority. In more recent times, we have seen military defections play a decisive role in regime change when internal confidence collapses. The key is not whether soldiers are unhappy, but whether they believe their future is tied to the survival of the regime.

This is why the situation in Iran must be understood beyond headlines about war. If conflict escalates and economic pressure intensifies, the strain on the military will increase. A system that depends on compulsory service, low wages, and ideological loyalty can hold together for a time, but history shows that when confidence breaks, it breaks quickly. The real risk is not simply external war. It is internal instability if the men tasked with defending the system begin to question whether that system is still worth defending.

?? BREAKING: Joe Kent, Director of the National Counterterrorism Center, has RESIGNED over the war in Iran

“I cannot in good conscience support the ongoing war in Iran. Iran posed no imminent threat to our nation, and it is clear that we started this war due to pressure from… pic.twitter.com/tiEwlONqlS

— The Patriot Oasis™ (@ThePatriotOasis) March 17, 2026

I touched on this story yesterday when the news broke. Listen, when the Director of the National Counterterrorism Center resigns and publicly states he cannot support a war because there was “no imminent threat,” you are no longer dealing with politics as usual. You are looking at the beginning of a fracture inside the system itself. Joe Kent stepping down is a warning sign that those inside the intelligence community are starting to distance themselves from what they know is being sold to the public as something it is not.

 “I cannot in good conscience support the ongoing war in Iran,” Kent said. “Iran posed no imminent threat to our nation, and it is clear that we started this war due to pressure from Israel and its powerful American lobby.”

I have warned for years that the Neocons never left Washington. They simply change parties, change faces, and reinsert themselves into every administration. It does not matter if it is Republican or Democrat. These people operate behind the curtain and push the same agenda over and over again. Endless war. Regime change. The illusion that the United States can reshape the world at will. We saw this with Iraq. We saw this with Libya. We saw this with Syria. And now we are watching the exact same script play out with Iran.

What is unfolding now is even more dangerous because the people inside the system are beginning to recognize it. When intelligence officials start walking away, it means they know the narrative does not match reality. You cannot claim imminent threat when your own counterterrorism chief is saying the opposite. That is when confidence begins to break, and once confidence breaks, it never unfolds in a neat and controlled fashion.

These wars are sold as quick operations, clean interventions, necessary for national security. I have pointed to Iraq countless times. Cheney said it would take weeks. Bush stood on an aircraft carrier and declared, “Mission accomplished!” That war dragged on for eight years. Thousands of lives lost, trillions spent, and in the end nothing was resolved. Now we are watching the same people, or at least the same ideology, pushing the country down the exact same path again.

The reality is that those who can see what is happening are beginning to step away. They understand that this is not about protecting the United States. This is about geopolitical strategy, influence, and an agenda that has been in motion for decades. The problem is that once these people gain control of policy, they create momentum that is very difficult to stop. When someone in Kent’s position walks away and tells you there was no imminent threat, you should pay attention. That is confirmation that what we are being told and what is actually happening are two very different things.

The most dangerous part is that the public is always the last to know. By the time resignations like this happen, the decision has already been made and the machine is already moving. The Economic Confidence Model has been warning that we are entering a period of rising geopolitical instability into 2027 and beyond. This is exactly how it begins, not with a declaration of world war, but with a series of decisions that escalate step by step until the situation is beyond anyone’s control.

QUESTION: Marty, I just watched the Why Files about a computer at MIT that predicted the end of society by 2040. It was commissioned by the Club of Rome. I think it was in Frankfurt where you were asked about the Club of Rome and you admitted that you did have contact with them and the Bilderberg Group. You have talked about the World Economic Forum. Did they also go to you about 2032 not just MIT?

DL

ANSWER: Yes, I was asked about the forecast for 2032. I told them that I did not agree with the MIT forecast that it was all nonsense and based on the same theory of Global Warming and Malthus population prediction from the 18th century. My model warned that the corruption within government would bring down Republican forms of government. This is what has brought down every government for thousands of years not resources and polution.

The MIT forecast produced what they wanted to hear. What history shows is that this all just complete fiction. Civilization collapses from internal corruption, which is why no empire, nation, or city-state has ever survived. Monarchy eventually leads to Tyranny because the power becomes hereditary not based on talent. That gives way to Aristocracy (Rule by the Best), which evolves into an Oligarchy driven by self-interest. Then you see a revolution where you get a Republic, which is pretend representative government that is always worse than a preferable Democracy (Rule by the Many). The corruption of self-interest continues and you end up with an Ochlocracy (Mob Rule) and the cycle starts all over again.

They do not want to believe that for at the core lies Marxism. This idea that government can control society. You end up with the idea of the EU that one government will eliminate war when in fact it becomes tyrannical overruling the culture of the people and attempting to force one-size-fits-all, which is what brought down Communism.

The MIT model blames over-population, society, and resources so the solution is always more government. This forecast has never taken place even once in thousands of years and my research demonstrated the exact opposite that the greatest evil which torments society is always government that constantly seeks more and more power as they feel their power slipping through their fingers. This is what leads to sovereign debt crisis and revolutions, not polution and over-population.

Thus these people seek world domination to suppress all dissent and prefer the MIT model. It should be no surprise why these various groups do their best to try to discredit me in hopes of preventing people from looking at my solution rather than theirs. This is why mainstream media will NEVER review our forecasts and certainly will NEVER explain what is 2032 all about. That would mean less government not more.