Apr 9 2026

Why America’s Money Always Follows War


Posted originally on Apr 9, 2026 by Martin Armstrong |  

USaidcashUSflag

When you strip away the propaganda, foreign aid is rarely about charity. It is about strategy, war, and buying influence. The latest long-run data show that from 1946 through 2024, more than $1 trillion in inflation-adjusted U.S. foreign aid went to just five recipients: Israel at $337.0 billion, Egypt at $198.9 billion, former South Vietnam at $193.8 billion, Afghanistan at $168.5 billion, and South Korea at $127.6 billion. Together, those five alone absorbed roughly 30% of all U.S. foreign aid since World War II. In fiscal 2024, overall U.S. foreign aid obligations were about $82.3 billion, covering 177 countries, and about two-thirds of that aid was classified as economic while roughly one-third was military. That is the first clue. Washington calls it aid, but the money consistently follows conflict zones, military alliances, and geopolitical choke points.

Israel sits at the top because it has long served as Washington’s anchor in the Middle East. The Council on Foreign Relations notes that Israel has received over $300 billion in total U.S. economic and military aid since its founding, and under the current memorandum of understanding the United States agreed to provide $3.8 billion per year through 2028, including $500 million annually for missile defense. Nearly all modern U.S. aid to Israel is military. That tells you exactly what this is. This is not a poverty program. This is a long-term military investment in maintaining a regional outpost that aligns with U.S. policy and projects power into one of the most unstable regions on earth.

Egypt comes second for a similar reason, but from the opposite side of the same equation. Cairo has for decades been paid to remain inside the American orbit and preserve the regional balance surrounding Israel and the Suez Canal. Reuters reported that the Biden administration granted Egypt its full $1.3 billion allocation in military aid in 2024, despite human rights concerns, because Washington considered Egypt vital to U.S. national security priorities, ceasefire negotiations, hostage talks, and humanitarian logistics linked to Gaza. In other words, Egypt is funded not because Washington admires its internal governance, but because it occupies critical real estate and performs a strategic function. If Israel is the spear point, Egypt is part of the containment framework around it.

Vietnam was pure Cold War spending disguised as nation-building. The National Archives notes that American assistance to Vietnam began before 1954 and continued after the Republic of Vietnam declared independence in the South, with U.S. backing sustaining the Diem government and then the wider anti-communist war effort. The Council on Foreign Relations summarizes it plainly: the United States poured money into South Vietnam to support the military and promote stability during the war, and when South Vietnam fell, the aid ended. That is the key point. If this had truly been development assistance, it would have continued after the war. It did not. The money was there to try to hold a strategic line against communist expansion in Southeast Asia. Once the line broke, so did the funding.

Afghanistan was Vietnam repeated in another century. According to SIGAR, by March 2021, U.S. appropriations for Afghanistan reconstruction alone had reached $144.4 billion, with the report warning that the investment was at serious risk of waste, fraud, abuse, or outright failure. SIGAR also found that more than $2.4 billion had been spent on capital assets that were unused, abandoned, misused, deteriorated, or destroyed. That was reconstruction money alone, before counting the much larger war costs. SIGAR cited a broader estimate of $2.26 trillion in total Afghanistan war costs, while even the Defense Department’s own estimate put cumulative obligations at $824.9 billion.

This is what Washington does. It invades, installs a model, funds the system to keep it alive, and then calls the expenditure foreign aid. Afghanistan ranked so high because it was not a normal aid recipient. It was a twenty-year attempt to subsidize an occupation, build a client state, and hold a strategic position in Central Asia.

South Korea is the one case on the list that Washington can point to as a relative success, but even there the motive was never altruism. Korea was funded because it sat on the front line of the Cold War, directly adjacent to communist North Korea and within range of China. Korean development archives state that foreign aid raised South Korea’s capital stock in education, health, roads, railways, power, water, sanitation, and industrial financing. A historical GAO review found that by the early 1970s the United States had provided South Korea with over $5.4 billion in grant military aid and significant economic assistance, while also bearing $9.8 billion in costs for maintaining U.S. forces in Korea from 1954 through 1972. Washington underwrote South Korea because it needed an anti-communist stronghold in Asia. The aid worked far better there than in Vietnam or Afghanistan, but the strategic intent was the same.

Once you line these five up side by side, the pattern is impossible to miss. Israel, Egypt, and South Korea were paid to anchor American influence in strategically vital regions. South Vietnam and Afghanistan were funded as war theaters and client-state experiments. None of this was random, and none of it was primarily humanitarian. The money followed military doctrine, containment strategy, logistics, and regime support. That is why foreign aid should always be analyzed as an extension of foreign policy, not as benevolence. Even the U.S. government’s own descriptions of assistance emphasize national security, influence, and regional stability.

The real lesson is that Washington does not hand out money because it has excess compassion. It deploys money where it wants control. That is why the same names keep appearing decade after decade. Aid is simply the cleaner word for financing alliances, subsidizing wars, and maintaining imperial reach. When the strategic value is there, the money flows.

Categories:Geopolitical

Apr 9 2026

Digital Iron Curtain Expands as Russia Adopts China’s Surveillance Model


Posted originally on Apr 9, 2026 by Martin Armstrong |  

Russia has now begun implementing what can only be described as a street-level surveillance hunt, with police conducting mass traffic stops not for crime in the traditional sense, but to inspect citizens’ phones for so-called “illegal VPNs.” This marks a profound shift in the role of law enforcement, in which the objective is no longer simply to maintain public safety but to control access to information. Reports indicate that officers are stopping individuals at random, demanding access to their devices, and scanning for software designed to bypass state-imposed internet restrictions, illustrating how governments are moving from policing actions to policing access itself.

What is unfolding closely resembles the system already embedded in China, where authorities have taken surveillance to a far more invasive level. Since 2021, Chinese police have reportedly gone door-to-door requiring citizens to install state-backed “anti-fraud” applications that function as real-time monitoring tools. These applications are designed to scan devices continuously and immediately alert authorities if users attempt to install VPNs or access restricted platforms. The purpose extends well beyond fraud prevention, as it creates a mechanism to detect intent before action, allowing authorities to intervene at the earliest stage of non-compliance.

The emergence of this model is not accidental, and it ties directly into the broader shift toward integrating technology with state control. Governments are increasingly building systems that allow them to monitor behavior across multiple layers, including communication, financial transactions, and movement. Once these systems are operational, they become part of the infrastructure of governance, expanding in scope rather than contracting over time. China has already demonstrated how digital ID systems, payment networks, and surveillance tools can be combined into a unified framework that tracks and influences behavior on a national scale.

Russia’s adoption of similar tactics reflects the pressures facing governments dealing with sanctions, economic instability, and internal dissent. Restricting VPN usage effectively limits access to external information sources, confining the population within a controlled narrative environment. This becomes especially relevant when economic conditions weaken, because managing perception becomes as important as managing policy. Confidence plays a central role in any financial system, and when that confidence begins to falter, governments often respond by tightening control rather than loosening it.

A wider pattern is beginning to emerge when these developments are viewed together. This is not limited to Russia or China, but represents a broader direction in which governments are moving toward systems capable of monitoring and restricting both information and capital flows in real time. The same types of frameworks being discussed elsewhere under labels such as digital currencies, fraud prevention, or online safety can be adapted to enforce compliance when necessary. Once authorities gain the ability to observe behavior at scale, the incentive to regulate that behavior increases significantly.

Previous eras relied on physical measures to impose capital controls, such as restricting bank withdrawals or limiting cross-border transfers, but the modern approach embeds control directly into the technology people use daily. Smartphones, payment systems, and digital identity platforms can all be leveraged to enforce rules instantly, without the need for visible intervention until enforcement is triggered. Limiting VPN access fits into this structure by ensuring that information cannot move freely beyond state oversight, reinforcing the broader architecture of control.

It is a mistake to assume that such measures remain confined to specific regions. As global financial pressures intensify and sovereign debt concerns continue to build, the incentive to deploy tools that manage both perception and behavior will only increase. Once the capability exists to control both the flow of information and the flow of money, government has unprecedented control over the population.

Apr 9 2026

No One Wants War — But No One Wants to Think Either


Posted Apr 9, 2026 by Martin Armstrong |  
All - Megyn Kelly on Democrats in a recent episode of her podcast: "Trump could drop a nuke and I'd still vote Republican over those people. What they want to do is

Mindless sheep exist on both wings of the bird. I often criticize the Democrats for their far-left views, but we are now witnessing the dark side of blind party politics. The latest headlines surrounding Megyn Kelly state she would remain loyal to the Republican Party “even if Trump dropped a nuke on another country.” Independent thought is collapsing.

When you step back and look at the broader data, the American people themselves are not aligned with this type of blind loyalty. Poll after poll shows the opposite. A CNN poll found that 59% of Americans disapprove of military action against Iran. Reuters/Ipsos polling showed only 27% supported strikes, while far more opposed them. Another CNN survey shows just 34% approve of the war, with two-thirds believing there is no clear plan. Meanwhile, over 75% oppose sending ground troops, which is about as decisive as it gets in modern polling. Even more striking, a CBS poll found that 92% of Americans believe the war should end as quickly as possible.

So the people are not demanding war. The media, on the other hand, is fueled by partisan politics. Instead of thoughtful debate, we are seeing ideological entrenchment where individuals align themselves with a party to the point that they are unwilling to question anything that comes from their side. This is not confined to one party.

There are extreme Democrats who will support policies regardless of consequence simply because they oppose Republicans. There are extreme Republicans who will support actions regardless of consequence simply because they oppose Democrats. The middle ground, where independent thinking once existed, is being squeezed out. That is how societies break down.

When political identity replaces independent thought, you no longer have a functioning republic. You have factions. Each side becomes convinced that the other is so dangerous that anything is justified to stop them. That is precisely the mindset reflected in statements suggesting that even the destruction of another nation would not be enough to reconsider political allegiance. This is modern-day tribalism.

The Economic Confidence Model has always shown that political polarization rises sharply during periods of declining confidence in government. As trust erodes, people do not become more rational. They become more emotional and more extreme. They seek certainty in group identity rather than truth. That is what we are witnessing right now.

The irony is that while the political class continues to push conflict abroad, the population itself is clearly against it. The polls could not be more consistent. Americans do not want war. They do not want escalation. They do not want endless foreign entanglements. But leadership is no longer responding to the people.

When people stop questioning their own side and begin to justify anything simply because it aligns with their political identity, that is when a society becomes vulnerable to its own collapse. It no longer requires an external enemy. It begins to destroy itself from within.

This is why independent thinking is now more important than ever. Blind loyalty to any party is a detriment to society. It prevents accountability and reason. No one wants war. The data proves that. The real question is whether people are willing to think for themselves or continue to follow respective tribes wherever they are led.

Apr 9 2026

The Iran War Update


Posted originally on Apr 8, 2026 by Martin Armstrong |  

Iran Deal 1

I believe that Benjamin Netanyahu is a highly dangerous psychopath, which is defined as a person characterized by traits such as a lack of empathy, remorse, or guilt, and often engages in manipulative or antisocial behavior. From the outset of this war, Netanyahu was very bullish that his dream of destroying Iran would follow. His ruthless tactics of assassinations actually prevent negotiation because they fear that just attending a meeting gives him the opportunity to kill them.

The tone of the statement from his office, acknowledging the ceasefire, was far more muted than his boisterous announcement at the outset. The ceasefire was clearly a decision made by President Donald Trump, not Netanyahu. Compared to the triumphal statements from the US and Iran, both of which claimed major victories after five weeks of war, Netanyahu clearly was defeated in his clever manipulation of Trump. Netanyahu characterized the operation as a success, but said the ceasefire was NOT the end and that Israel had more goals to achieve, either by agreement or renewing the fighting.

Netanyahu accomplished nothing. From the outset, he said the “goal of the operation is to put an end to the threat from the Ayatollah regime in Iran” and that “this operation will continue as long as necessary.” Netanyahu promised Israelis that this campaign would lead to the end of the Islamic regime, that by cutting the head of the snake, this war would remove an existential threat from Israel. None of these goals was achieved. Iran’s governing clerical establishment remains in place, although Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and other senior figures have been killed in US-Israeli strikes, Iran’s armed forces have still been fighting on. As far as Iran’s nuclear program and stockpile of enriched uranium has not changed. Iran’s arsenal of ballistic missiles may have been depleted to some extent. It is widely assumed behind the curtain that they only used up perhaps 50%. Iran has been able to launch barrages of them towards Israel throughout the war depleting Israel’s defense.

Netanyahu maintains that Lebanon was not part of a ceasefire. Israel carried out a wave of air strikes across Lebanon following the US-Iran ceasefire announcement
This is a stark conflict over whether the ceasefire deal covers Lebanon has also emerged, which is putting the entire ceasefire at risk. Likewise, Iran is free to attack Gulf States. Netanyahu referred to this ceasefire as a “suspension” of hostilities, but that he had NOT publicly accepted the war was over. Clearly, all the damage Israel has endured with not a single stated goal achieved, this failure to achieve even one of his stated objectives was not good for him politically, and that another issue is the fact that Trump has assumed the leadership role with Netanyahu not having much of a say.

Until now, there were public displays of unity between Netanyahu and Trump, but their goals are now at odds. A full end to the war, if it is based on the “10-point proposal from Iran” that Trump has referenced, will be widely seen as a strategic success for Tehran, given that is constitutes a list of demands by its leadership. The real sticky point is a guarantee that Iran will not be attacked again. That seems to stick in the throat of Netanyahu and it suggests that he will see to create some sort of false flag to argue that Iran has violated the agreement.

Yair Lapid, leader of the opposition in Israel, said there had “never been such a political disaster in our entire history” and that “Israel was not even at the table when decisions were made concerning the core of our national security.” The tone of of Lapid’s statements demonstrates the political crisis brewing inside Israel. He added: “The army did everything they asked of it, the public displayed incredible resilience, but Netanyahu failed politically, failed strategically, and did not meet any of the goals he himself set.”

It is an election year in Israel, meaning Netanyahu could potentially lose power within months. This may give him the incentive to create a false flag yo restore the war.

Apr 9 2026

Panicans and Division


Posted originally on CTH on April 8, 2026

I’ll expand on this in a more detailed outline, but generally this is the tldr version of something people keep wondering about.

Back in 2015/2016 The Salem Media Group, like -the whole crew- the Evangelical right per se’, was essentially against Donald Trump a republican candidate.  Trump wasn’t religious enough, and Salem was/is VERY pro-Israel. A very strong evangelical tribe.

Salem Media Inc supported Ted Cruz (mostly), they also really liked Scott Walker (and similar). Milquetoast varieties of Republican. You know the sort.  {2015 citation}

Breitbart (Robert and Rebekah Mercer) and the strong pro-Israel group (Mark Levin, Ben Shapiro, etc.) also supported Ted Cruz (Jeff Roe and company).

Almost no one directly supported Trump. You know that, and you know the outcome of it.

That environment led to tons of eventual jump-overs, including Steve Bannon, Kellyanne Conway, etc. when Trump became the “presumptive” nominee.  Hey, they go where the $$ flows.  Then Mark Levin followed reluctantly, and eventually the Salem crew bit their tongue, overcame the “grab em by the pussy” nonsense and joined the pragmatic MAGA coalition.

Now, you might also remember the name Brad Parscale, an online tech guy who was datamining Facebook and microtargeting for Trump support.  That led to a controversy called “Cambridge Analytica” after the unexpected Trump win and the leftists crying foul about the online support that defeated their aggressive corporate media ploys.

That’s the core. We agree?

Okay. Fast forward. Donald Trump held a loose coalition, which included the Salem tribe (which included a now bigger TPU$A, Charlie Kirk et al) which included the high-horse Evangelicals, only now they were more firm horse riders.

Brad Parscale (pictured right in 2016) was later hired by Salem Media Inc as their strategic operations director (current position).

No longer connected to the Trump team, yet quasi-supporting the objectives of the Trump administration, Mr Brad Parscale takes money from the pro-Israel group, files FARA registration forms and goes back to his tech skillset to shape and influence politics; except now, a decade later, tech micro-targeting is big time algorithmic control systems.

Salem Media Inc. still in alignment with their Evangelical roots, plus a new addition from Trump world (Lara Trump and Don Jr.) each with a foot in the Salem operation, and Brad Parscale promoting the pro-Israel Evangelical mission with unbelievable tools thanks to modern tech, artificial intelligence, datamining and algorithmic data operations on social media platforms.

Then comes billionaires Larry and David Ellison, also very pro-Israel, in combination with Salem Media Inc. operated by Parscale, and the ideological alignment of Mark Levin, Ben Shapiro, Laura Loomer etc., taking algorithmic AI and Evangelical data targeting to new stratospheric levels.

Which brings us through 2025 and Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu noting in his influencer meetup that the Tik Tok and X platform were the two most important strategic operations of interest, against the warning of diminished GenX support from Charlie Kirk.  {Citation and Video}

Subsequently, Larry Ellison (Oracle) takes control of Tik Tok (GenZ), while Elon Musk (free speech) is controlling X.

All of the above come into a deep, collaborative, pro-Israel synergy.

That’s not a conspiracy; it is simply the reality of political targeting and influence in the year 2026.

That’s the current landscape.

That’s what you are witnessing online, perhaps in your data profile, and more than likely in your algorithmically controlled online travels.  Your identity as defined by your data and pixels implanted into your profile that can be targeted to feed you specific information and content.

Algorithmic support operations, also using money to shift the visibility of support (or lack therein), is why “X” and other platform content providers, don’t always align with reality you see offline and/or polling that shows consistent support for Donald Trump amid the MAGA base.

The narratives are not organic, often they are divisive. However, most users outside the control system can’t distinguish the content that is being targeted toward them.

I hope that somewhat helps see through the friction.

Most of us have supported Trump throughout his endeavors in office, trusting him to do what needed to be done, and using his best judgement on whatever the issue was while understanding that he has much more information than us.  This still applies today.

This doesn’t mean that President Trump can see everything or has immediate reference for everything happening.  An example was JD Vance telling the audience today that he had no idea Zelenskyy had threatened Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban.

The White House is focused on the issues confronting them daily; they have a priority perspective, and they do not see everything.  Trust God, and pray for President Trump.

Apr 9 2026

Vice President JD Vance Delivers Important Clarifying Remarks on Iran as He Departs Hungary


Posted originally on CTH on April 8, 2026 | Sundance |

Vice President JD Vance gave an impromptu press conference as he departed Hungary.  At the beginning of his remarks, Vance wanted to clarify several false media reports surrounding the Iran ceasefire deal.  WATCH:

.

Apr 9 2026

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer Takes Credit for Iran Ceasefire He Just Found Out About


Posted originally on CTH on April 8, 2026 | Sundance

In typical U.K political fashion, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer flew to Saudi Arabia to present the optics of participation, when he found out about the Iran ceasefire deal.

Immediately, Starmer, with an apparent mouse in his pocket, heads for the cameras to announce, “well, we’ve just reached this ceasefire.”   WATCH (prompted):

.

Apr 9 2026

JD Vance Discusses “Fragile Truce” with Iran During Visit to Hungary


Posted originally on CTH on April 8, 2026 | Sundance 

Vice President JD Vance was previously scheduled to appear at the Mathias Corvinus Collegium in Budapest, Hungary, when the truce deal with Iran was made public.  During his appearance, the Vice President was asked about his perspective on the negotiations.  WATCH:

Full discussion is included in the full video below.

U.S. Vice President JD Vance deliver impactful remarks at the Mathias Corvinus Collegium in Budapest, Hungary. The private Hungarian institution welcomed VP Vance as he spoke on U.S.-Hungary relations, leadership, and international cooperation.

.

Apr 9 2026

Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt Holds a Press Conference – 1:00pm ET Livestream


Posted originally on CTH on April 8, 2026 | Sundance 

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt is scheduled to hold a press briefing today at 1:00pm ET from the Brady Room at the White House.  Livestream Links Below:

RSBN Livestream with ongoing discussion.

AP Newswire Livestream (broadcasting live) awaiting presser.

.

C-SPAN livestream. Activates with White House livestream.

Apr 9 2026

Amid Ceasefire in Iran Pentagon Holds Press Briefing – 8:00am Livestream


Posted originally on CTH on April 8, 2026 | Sundance

President Trump announced, “A big day for World Peace! Iran wants it to happen, they’ve had enough! Likewise, so has everyone else! The United States of America will be helping with the traffic buildup in the Strait of Hormuz. There will be lots of positive action! Big money will be made. Iran can start the reconstruction process. We’ll be loading up with supplies of all kinds, and just “hangin’ around” in order to make sure that everything goes well. I feel confident that it will. Just like we are experiencing in the U.S., this could be the Golden Age of the Middle East!!!”

War Secretary Pete Hegseth and Joint Chiefs Chairman Dan Caine are scheduled to hold a press conference at 8:00am ET. Livestream Links Below:

.

.