One dead after church tent collapses during storm in Virginia

by: Paul Hess

Israel tells Trump it is not bound by Lebanon clause in Iran deal

Netanyahu tells US president Israel will not withdraw from Lebanon and will keep acting against Hezbollah; ministers believe cabinet fully backed him in defending Israel’s interests on northern front

Itamar Eichner|Yesterday | 23:33

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told U.S. President Donald Trump that Israel does not consider itself bound by the Lebanon clause in the emerging agreement with Iran, Israeli officials said, making clear that Jerusalem will not accept any arrangement that limits its freedom to act against Hezbollah.

According to Israeli officials, Netanyahu also told Trump that Israel will not withdraw from Lebanon. The IDF will remain in the positions it currently holds and will continue operating to foil threats from Hezbollah, including destroying terror infrastructure and responding to any attack on Israel.

IDF strike in Beirut

(Video: IDF)

The understanding among ministers in the Security Cabinet is that Israel is standing firm on its interests in Lebanon, and that Netanyahu received full backing in the cabinet meeting for his position.

The dispute comes after Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, Trump and Iran all announced that a U.S.-Iran agreement had been reached. According to Pakistan, the deal is meant to end the U.S.-Iran war and halt military operations on several fronts, including Lebanon.

That clause has become a red line for Israel. Hezbollah, the Iran-backed terror group based in Lebanon, has been fighting Israel from across the northern border. Israel says it must retain freedom to strike Hezbollah targets in order to protect northern communities and prevent the group from rebuilding its forces near the border.

Israeli officials assessed overnight that Tehran had decided to “close the incident” and avoid attacking Israel after an Israeli strike in Beirut’s Dahieh district, a Hezbollah stronghold in the Lebanese capital. Iran had threatened to retaliate, but Israeli officials believe U.S. pressure and mediation efforts led Tehran to stand down rather than risk derailing the agreement.

Senior Israeli officials said the Lebanon clause is “something we will have to stand firm on anyway if we are asked to make withdrawals there.” According to one official, Netanyahu is “standing firm and succeeding in pushing back such Iranian demands,” and the Americans understand that Israel views the issue as a nonstarter.

During the cabinet meeting, Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich argued that if Iran fired at Israel, Israel should respond forcefully in Lebanon rather than inside Iran. His reasoning, according to officials familiar with the discussion, was that Iran is Trump’s arena because the U.S. president led the campaign and negotiations against Tehran. Lebanon, by contrast, is Israel’s immediate security arena.

Under that approach, Israel would avoid being blamed for sabotaging Trump’s deal by striking inside Iran, while still preserving its freedom of action against Hezbollah in Lebanon.

But ministers said Lebanon is different. Israel is fighting Hezbollah there, paying a price and defending the security of residents in northern Israel. Officials said Israel cannot return to the reality before the October 7 attack, when it says its hands were tied while threats built up along its borders.

According to officials, Smotrich said that if Iran tried to create a link between Lebanon and Iran, Israel should “match and raise.” He proposed warning residents of the Beqaa Valley, a major Hezbollah area in eastern Lebanon, that if Iran fired at Israel, they would have one hour to evacuate before the IDF struck dozens of targets there.

The idea, officials said, was to place heavy pressure on Hezbollah from within Lebanon’s Shiite community, while also making it harder for Trump to break with Israel. Israel would be signaling that it was trying not to harm his Iran agreement by avoiding strikes inside Iran, but would still reject any attempt to restrict its actions in Lebanon.

Another argument raised in the meeting was that strikes in Lebanon are easier, cheaper and more accessible than strikes in Iran. “Five minutes of flight instead of four hours,” one official said.

Supporters of the Lebanon option also argued that every strike there would be “two for the price of one”: a message of deterrence to Iran and a chance to damage Hezbollah in a way that could shape security along Israel’s northern border for years.

Smotrich was the main minister pushing that line, but several senior security officials supported his position, according to Israeli officials. They said other ministers competed over who would demand a stronger strike inside Iran, even though it was clear Netanyahu was unlikely to approve attacks above a certain threshold because that could trigger a serious rupture with Trump.

“We must not tear the rope with Trump, but the responses must be clear. If we respond, we must create deterrence,” Minister Eli Cohen said.

Minister Gila Gamliel said Israel should respond and “capture more territory from them.” Minister Orit Strock thanked Netanyahu for “standing the test,” and said Israel should impose a price that would make further attacks not worthwhile.

Transportation Minister Miri Regev said Israel was “not a protectorate” and must “stop the ping-pong and get out of the equation.”

National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir called for an uncompromising response. “In the Middle East, you have to be the village madman,” he said. “Not a balanced response and not a measured response. Any fire at Israel is a declaration of war against us, and we must respond disproportionately.”

https://www.ynetnews.com/article/hyy11t1p11mg#autoplay

"I think what people appreciate less [is] there was a lot of sanctioned crude oil on the water. In other words, unsold," Chapman said. "Iranian, Venezuelan, Russian crude and that has now gone to the market, and that's mitigated some of the loss of oil through the Strait of Hormuz," according to CNBC.

The Venezuela dimension is particularly relevant. ExxonMobil has been assessing a potential return to Venezuelan operations, with teams now on the ground in the country for the first time in roughly two decades.

Chapman said the resource is substantial but cautioned that any decision on whether Venezuela can compete for capital in ExxonMobil's portfolio will take time. The country's current output is approximately 800,000 barrels per day against a peak of more than 3 million, according to the Bernstein conference transcript.

What the Strait of Hormuz closure means for oil and the economy

The Strait of Hormuz normally carries roughly 20% of the world's oil supply every day. Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, and Iran all rely on it to reach global buyers.

Since the Iran war began in late February, tanker traffic through the strait has fallen to less than 10% of normal vessel flows.

The Saudis have partially compensated by running their East-West pipeline at full capacity, pushing 5 million barrels per day of crude from the Gulf to the Red Sea for export to global markets. But that workaround has limits, and the cumulative loss from the region has already topped 1 billion barrels since the conflict began, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA).

For the broader economy, the consequences of a price move to $150-$160 per barrel would be direct and wide-ranging. Airlines and shipping companies face immediate cost pressure. Gasoline and diesel prices at the consumer level rise within weeks of a crude spike.

Manufacturers carrying elevated input costs reduce investment. Central banks watching inflation reaccelerate face pressure to delay rate cuts or tighten further, compressing economic growth at a moment when rate uncertainty is already elevated.

Key figures on the oil supply crunch and its economic implications:

Global oil supply fell to 95.1 million barrels per day in April 2026, down 12.8 million barrels per day since the Iran war began in February; Gulf output disrupted by the Hormuz closure has run more than 14 million barrels per day below pre-war levels; cumulative supply losses from the region have already exceeded 1 billion barrels, according to the IEA.

ExxonMobil has direct exposure to the conflict: two LNG trains at a joint venture facility with QatarEnergy in Qatar sustained damage during the conflict, representing approximately 3% of ExxonMobil's total global production; QatarEnergy has estimated the repair timeline at three to five years, according to CNBC.

ExxonMobil's energy products segment earned $2.8 billion in Q1 2026, up roughly $2 billion from the same period a year ago; Gulf Coast refineries ran at record utilization rates; refinery output increased by 200,000 barrels per day in March compared to February, as the company leveraged its U.S. refining position to capture the Hormuz premium, CNBC confirmed.

The IEA expects global oil demand to shrink by 420,000 barrels per day in 2026 as higher prices reduce driving and flying; Chapman acknowledged that demand destruction is how the market self-corrects when prices reach the $150-$160 range, describing it as the natural ceiling for the current spike, according to CNBC,

Woods warned of a 1- to 2-month lag between a Hormuz reopening and the restoration of normal supply flows; even if the strait reopens, the drawdown of inventories means prices will remain elevated for weeks after the physical supply resumes, CNBC reported.

What a $150 oil shock means for the economy and consumers

A move to $150-$160 per barrel would be one of the most significant energy price events in decades, and its effects on the U.S. economy would be felt well before any quarterly GDP report captures them. Gasoline prices at the pump typically follow crude moves within two to four weeks. A $70 rise in Brent from current levels would push regular unleaded toward $6 per gallon in many US markets, consuming a meaningful share of disposable income at a moment when consumer spending is already showing signs of strain.

The transmission from energy prices to the rest of the economy is well established. Airlines pass fuel surcharges to travelers within weeks. Trucking companies add fuel levies to shipping rates, flowing into the price of groceries and manufactured products.

Each of those channels feeds back into consumer prices, which is why energy shocks of this magnitude historically produce measurable inflation effects within one to two quarters.

That inflation dynamic creates a direct problem for the Federal Reserve. Markets are currently pricing in rate cuts later this year. A sustained oil price spike that reaccelerates headline inflation gives the Fed cover to delay those cuts.

Sustained higher rates slow business investment, increase mortgage costs, and compress consumer credit. The economic consequence is not simply higher gas prices. It is a tighter financial environment arriving at a time when the economy is already navigating trade policy uncertainty and a softening labor market.

For investors, the energy sector stands to benefit directly from the price spike Chapman is describing. But the knock-on effects for technology stocks, consumer discretionary names, and rate-sensitive sectors run in the opposite direction.

The Strait of Hormuz is not just an energy story. It is the variable that could reshape the macroeconomic backdrop for the rest of 2026.

Related: Chevron CEO sends blunt message on oil, the economy

https://www.tri-cityherald.com/news/business/article316044295.html

Russia’s New Warning Shot From Space

Posted Jun 15, 2026 by Martin Armstrong |

For years, politicians have been obsessed with tanks, artillery, missiles, and troop counts while the real battlefield has quietly moved into space. The latest reports suggesting that Russian satellites may be capable of disrupting GPS signals on a continental scale should be sending shockwaves through military circles. If these findings prove accurate, then we are looking at a capability that extends far beyond simply making a driver’s navigation system malfunction. GPS is embedded in aviation, shipping, banking, telecommunications, emergency services, power grids, financial transactions, military operations, and virtually every aspect of modern infrastructure.

According to researchers, dozens of GPS interference events detected across Europe since 2019 may have originated from Russia’s EKS satellite constellation. These satellites were originally designed as part of Russia’s missile early-warning system, but testing suggests they may also possess the ability to transmit powerful signals capable of disrupting GPS reception across vast regions. The significance is not whether a disruption lasts a few seconds or a few minutes. The significance is proving the concept works. Once a nation demonstrates it can interfere with navigation systems from orbit, the entire strategic equation changes.

What many fail to appreciate is how dependent modern warfare has become on satellite navigation. Precision-guided weapons rely on GPS. Drones rely on GPS. Aircraft, ships, logistics networks, battlefield communications, and intelligence systems all depend on accurate positioning data. Remove that capability and armies suddenly find themselves operating under conditions that resemble an entirely different century. During the Ukraine conflict, both sides have aggressively pursued electronic warfare, jamming systems, and signal disruption technologies. What appears to be emerging now is the possibility of extending those capabilities far beyond localized battlefields and into continental-scale operations.

Researchers from the University of Texas and Stanford University have linked mysterious GPS interference across Europe to a group of Russian satellites. The research was carried out by Todd Humphreys and Zach

Financial markets depend on precise timing synchronization. Cellular networks require timing signals to coordinate traffic. Shipping companies use satellite navigation to move trillions of dollars worth of goods annually. Airlines depend on navigation systems to safely manage thousands of flights every day. Even modern agriculture relies heavily on GPS-guided equipment. The public views GPS as a convenience. Governments and corporations know it has become a critical piece of economic infrastructure.

This development also highlights something I have warned about repeatedly. The next major conflict will not resemble the wars of the twentieth century. Future wars will target infrastructure before populations even realize an attack has occurred. A cyberattack can disable communications. A satellite disruption can interfere with transportation networks. Financial systems can be disrupted electronically. Power grids can be targeted remotely. The battlefield increasingly consists of networks, satellites, data centers, and communications systems rather than simply soldiers crossing borders.

Researchers from the University of Texas and Stanford University have linked a series of mysterious GPS interference events across Europe to Russia's EKS early-warning satellite constellation. By analyzing years of data, the timing is noteworthy. We are entering the most dangerous phase of the geopolitical cycle. The 2026 Panic Cycle year has already begun exposing vulnerabilities across the global system. Relations between Russia and NATO remain strained. The United States and China are engaged in a rapidly escalating technological competition. Military spending is rising globally. Governments everywhere are preparing for contingencies that most citizens never consider. Space is no longer a peaceful frontier. It has become a strategic domain where the major powers are competing for dominance.

What should concern policymakers is not merely that Russia may possess this capability. The real question is how many nations are developing similar systems. The United States, China, Russia, and other powers have invested heavily in electronic warfare, anti-satellite technology, cyberwarfare, and space-based military assets. Every major power understands that controlling information, communications, and navigation systems may prove more decisive than controlling territory itself.

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/war/russias-new-warning-shot-from-space/

Senator Blackburn Demands Kik Verify the Age of Every User

It's the newest entry in a Senate catalog of child-safety bills that double as the scaffolding for a digital-ID internet.

Senator Marsha Blackburn wants video platform Kik to verify the age of everyone who signs up and there is no way to do that without first identifying everyone who signs up.

Kik runs on usernames instead of phone numbers, so confirming that a user is over 18 risks attaching that account to a real person.

The Tennessee Republican sent the demand to MediaLab CEO Michael Heyward on June 12 and gave the company until June 19 to answer a list of questions about how it screens its users.

We obtained a copy of the letter for you here.

Blackburn’s letter follows a report from the National Center on Sexual Exploitation, which created a fake test account posing as a 12-year-old girl under the username “Im12BeNice.”

The group alleges the account drew sexually explicit messages and nude images from adult strangers “within seconds,” even with Kik’s explicit-content filter switched on.

NCOSE Executive Director Haley McNamara said the test “indicates that the platform fails to protect children and remains a ‘predator’s paradise.'”

Blackburn’s letter points to recent prosecutions, including a repeat offender sentenced on May 20 to 15 years for sharing child sexual abuse material on Kik, a man who pleaded guilty the same day to forcing a child to produce such material, and a former teacher arrested in March for uploading it.

Blackburn accused Kik of running the same script as other platforms, advertising safety while ignoring or enabling abuse. “Children are being abused on your platform, and it appears you are doing little to stop it,” she wrote.

If the abuse the report documents is real, a system that ignored an account openly labeled as a child is an issue. The fix Blackburn is reaching for though does something the original problem does not. It forces every adult on Kik to identify themselves in order to keep talking and fits right into Blackburn’s overall agenda.

Blackburn’s legislative record is a growing stack of bills that use child safety and copyright protection to build surveillance and censorship tools.

Her TRUMP AMERICA AI Act, a 291-page draft introduced in March, would repeal Section 230 entirely, expose platforms and AI developers to open-ended liability for “reasonably foreseeable harms,” and fold KOSA’s age-verification mandates into a single federal framework enforced by the FTC, DOJ, and state attorneys general.

Without Section 230’s protections, platforms face lawsuits for hosting user speech and the rational business response is to remove anything that might attract one.

She also co-sponsored the Block BEARD Act, which would give federal courts the power to order ISPs, search engines, and potentially VPNs to block entire foreign websites accused of piracy, a site-blocking authority the US government has never held at that scale.

The child-safety framing on Kik is one piece of a broader push toward an internet where users carry digital IDs, platforms pre-screen speech to avoid liability, and the government can make websites disappear by court order.

Blackburn signs the letter as chairman of the Senate Judiciary subcommittee on Privacy, Technology, and the Law. She is also leading negotiations with the White House over a package that would trade limits on state regulation of artificial intelligence for a set of kids-safety bills, among them her Kids Online Safety Act and a federal age-verification requirement that lawmakers and the technology industry have fought over for years.

KOSA aims at general social media, which is exactly the ground the Paxton ruling left unsettled, so the constitutional fight that decision postponed is the one this package would start.

Stand against censorship and surveillance: join Reclaim The Net.

https://reclaimthenet.org/senator-blackburn-demands-kik-verify-the-age-of-every-user