Argentina’s Team has had the most favorable World Cup ever. What are the odds?! (2 min, 55 sec) Conspiracy theorists know that bread & circus sports are weighted and rigged.
Join @davidavocadowolfe 🥑

🇺🇸🚫💵 The Pentagon is desperate for funds — but key Republicans are skeptical

In a closed-door briefing earlier this month, key Pentagon officials sat down with House spending leaders from both parties to make an urgent case to quickly deliver more cash to fund the US war in Iran.

But when pressed by members of both parties for details, Pentagon officials were unable to offer any meaningful specifics about why they need the money so quickly — frustrating Republicans and Democrats alike, according to two people in the room.

Now, with the Pentagon’s reserves further depleted, the administration is unfurling a full-court press on Republican lawmakers in hopes it can clinch tens of billions of dollars that officials are seeking this summer as the US continues its fight against Iran.

But several GOP members told CNN they still lack critical information about the military’s capacity and needs – and aren’t convinced by what they have heard. Even those Republicans who support the funding push fear that a fraught political gamble in the waning days of summer could lead to a legislative implosion just months before the midterm elections.

For months, defense hawks in Congress have been warning the Pentagon’s munitions and funding have been badly depleted since the beginning of the war in Iran. Lawmakers anticipated they’d need to pass some kind of a supplemental funding package before the end of the fiscal year and congressional leadership has made it clear they want to move swiftly.

“Among the defense people, it’s an emergency that needs to get done,” Rep. Mike Simpson of Idaho said. “They’re going to run out of money in mid-August.”

But the emergency argument isn’t resonating with everyone. Some conservatives have threatened they could vote against the funding because it would simply go on the nation’s credit card. Others argue they aren’t clear why the Pentagon is in such desperate need for money after billions were infused to the Defense Department as part of the last sweeping party-line policy bill.

The House budget committee was able to advance the proposal unveiled by GOP leaders last week, which includes $60 billion for the Pentagon and $13 billion for intelligence agencies. And leadership is confident they can try to bring it to the floor for a vote in the week ahead. But even if Speaker Mike Johnson is able to muscle it through his chamber, GOP senators are expected to make significant changes to the legislation, which also includes grants to finance President Donald Trump’s “SAVE America Act” and billions in aid for farmers.

In the Senate, aides and members argue that the chamber is likely to push for far more money for the Pentagon than the House bill includes. The $73 billion for defense is just a fraction of the original $350 billion the administration floated previously as part of their $1.5 trillion budget request. The smaller number came after conservative members of the budget committee argued they would only be comfortable with a fraction of the $350 billion if the money was not going to be offset.

🔗 https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/the-pentagon-is-desperate-for-funds-but-key-republicans-are-skeptical/ar-AA28hOAy

🇰🇵⚔️🇰🇷 The Decisive Theater: North Korea and the Problem of Simultaneous War

Western analysts fixate on North Korea’s missiles. The real danger is speed — a mass artillery-and-missile salvo in the war’s first hours, backed by 1.2 million troops and tactical nuclear weapons. And if Europe, the Middle East, and Taiwan ignite at the same moment, Korea stops being a sideshow and becomes the tipping point.

The Korean Peninsula is essential to America’s strategy for deterring—and, if necessary, defeating—the emerging Axis of Dictatorships: the de facto alignment of China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea. The DMZ running across the Peninsula functions both as the frontline against North Korean aggression and as a critical component of regional deterrence vis-à-vis China. It also represents a potential flashpoint that could force American forces to reallocate resources from other areas. Therefore, the primary security threat to both the United States and South Korea is not just North Korea’s military strength but also the danger that multiple crises in different regions could overwhelm American military capacity and undermine global deterrence. Washington is already engaged—both directly and indirectly—in two regions: Europe and the Middle East, where the latter is demanding resource shifts.

While most attention has remained focused on the Indo-Pacific, Korea could become the critical tipping point if multiple crises happen simultaneously.

Although Western analysts mainly focus on North Korea’s nuclear and missile programs, Pyongyang’s biggest threat to US forces in Korea isn’t a single weapon but its ability to combine mass, surprise, and precision long-range fires during the early hours of a conflict. North Korea’s strategy seeks to inflict maximum US casualties quickly, hinder reinforcements, and create political pressure before the United States and South Korea can fully respond.

Over the past few years, North Korea has deployed thousands of tube artillery pieces and multiple-launch rocket systems within range of the Demilitarized Zone (DMZ), many hidden in fortified underground bunkers. With these, it could strike US installations at Camp Humphreys and Osan Air Base simultaneously, disrupt Korean logistics hubs and airfields, saturate US and Korean AMD systems with thousands of rounds in the initial hours, and most importantly, launch ballistic and cruise missile attacks deep into Korea. It could also expand the theater at will by attacking US installations in Japan.

The United States has significantly strengthened its posture over the past twenty years to counter the North Korean threat, and the overall balance should give US planners reason for optimism, as long as any future conflict on the Korean Peninsula is contained to the theater or at least sequenced with other key theaters.

The greatest risk across every major theater is increasingly one of simultaneity, with multiple theaters catching fire at once. It is further aggravated by Pyongyang’s persistence in pursuing and integrating battlefield nuclear weapons into its strategy rather than focusing on strategic deterrence. The Korean theater becomes exponentially more dangerous if tactical nuclear weapons are factored in, targeting US carrier strike groups, troop concentrations, and command centers.

🔗 https://www.19fortyfive.com/2026/07/the-decisive-theater-north-korea-and-the-problem-of-simultaneous-war/

🇺🇸🇰🇵 The Next Trump-North Korea Summit Starts on Kim’s Terms

Xi’s first Pyongyang visit in seven years, a ratified Russia pact, and a declaration that the arsenal is permanent: Andrew Latham on why the next Trump-Kim summit would open on Kim’s terms — and what gets conceded before anyone shakes hands.

Kim went into the 2018 and 2019 diplomacy under heavy sanctions pressure and real isolation, with significant nuclear concessions at least nominally on the table in exchange for relief and normalization. He isn’t negotiating from that position anymore. He’s negotiating as the head of a state that considers its arsenal permanent, and he wants Washington to deal with him on those terms without saying so out loud. His June statement plays to a domestic audience too, but it also announces the basis on which he expects any future talks to happen.

The old framework offered relief and normalization for movement toward denuclearization, on the assumption that North Korea needed something only Washington could provide. That’s the deal that collapsed in Hanoi in 2019. What’s emerging now is a different bargain: benefits for limits on an arsenal that stays exactly where it is. The shift happened slowly enough that most commentary on North Korea hasn’t caught up.

Washington was never Kim’s only source of external leverage. China has been Pyongyang’s patron for seven decades. What Washington had, going back to Singapore and Hanoi, was narrower: sanctions relief, a path to diplomatic normalization, and the legitimacy of an American president willing to treat him as a counterpart rather than a pariah.

That package mattered because Kim had few alternatives. He isn’t publicly asking Washington for much these days, which says less about his price than about how little urgency he feels about returning to the table at all.

Start with Russia, since the treaty is the clearest evidence on the table. Pyongyang has sent troops and large volumes of ammunition to support Moscow’s war in Ukraine. In exchange, per South Korean intelligence assessments, it has received economic assistance and military technology support under a 2024 strategic partnership with a mutual defense clause. None of it depends on North Korea’s nuclear posture or requires Kim to pretend he’s open to giving anything up.

China’s angle is less transactional but still significant. Xi Jinping made his first trip to Pyongyang in seven years this June, his first foreign trip of 2026, not long after Kim’s alignment with Moscow had visibly deepened. Beijing followed up this month by sending Wang Huning, its fourth-ranked official, to Pyongyang to reaffirm the agreements from Xi’s visit. North Korea has always hedged between Beijing and Moscow to some degree, but the current level of Russian support gives Kim a degree of room to maneuver that didn’t exist on anything like this scale in 2018.

Moscow hasn’t made North Korea prosperous. It has made American relief less indispensable than it used to be, a shift formalized when the two countries ratified their pact.

🔗 https://www.19fortyfive.com/2026/07/the-next-trump-north-korea-summit-starts-on-kims-terms/

🇨🇳🤝🇦🇫 China, after nearly a century, is poised to agree a transformative border opening with Afghanistan that would make possible the creation of a cargo corridor running all the way from the East China Sea to the Persian Gulf.

With the US renewing its blockading of Iranian ships seeking passage to the shipping lanes of the Indian Ocean, the Iranians have been busy reviewing their logistical options in trade at all points of the compass. The potential presented by Iran’s border with Afghanistan, a country that in turn has borders with China, Central Asia and Pakistan is one item that has moved much higher on Tehran’s economic agenda.

As Eldaniz Gusseinov and Daniel Longerich write in a July 13 article for Central Asia-Caucasus Institute’s Substack (“Iran’s Turn to the East: Afghanistan and the Contest Over Eurasia’s Corridors”): “The war has accelerated a reshaping of overland corridors around Iran. Tehran is strengthening its rear in Afghanistan, where it has already become the top trading partner and is extending a railway northward from Herat.”

The possibilities offered by Afghanistan as a corridor, however, will not be clear until Beijing takes a crucial decision. Add Gusseinov and Daniel Longerich: “The Afghan route gives Iran only partial insurance, since a through connection to China is not yet built and depends on Beijing’s willingness to open the border.”

Iran and Afghanistan can, of course, look to develop road and rail infrastructure that could provide for transformative expansions of Iranian, Afghan and other goods flows to China via Central Asia and Pakistan (though the Afghan Taliban’s extremely poor and volatile relations with Islamabad might preclude Pakistan as a viable, regular transit partner), but the big prize for both Tehran and Kabul would be a decision from Beijing to allow trade passage to and from China directly via Afghanistan with the opening of a border gateway at the end of the Afghan Wakhan Corridor.

China's only border checkpoint with Afghanistan, which lies at the end of the Wakhan Corridor, is closed. Opening it could give Afghanistan a huge economic boost and provide China with a route straight through to the Middle East and Iran with a road into China.

“Iran’s answer to its maritime vulnerability [exposed by the US blockade] lies in overland infrastructure,” conclude Gusseinov and Longerich, pointing to the Khaf-Herat railway, opened in 2020, which connected the Iranian rail network to the ancient oasis city of Herat in western Afghanistan.

With the ambition to build rail and road links right through the Wakhan Corridor, an elevated mountain valley, and into China, what hope is there that Beijing will give the green light?

China, till now, appears to have remained wary about opening the single border crossing at the junction of the Wakhan Corridor with its Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region over concerns about possible infiltration of East Turkestan Islamic Movement (ETIM) Uyghur militants from Afghan territory as well as its commitments to Pakistan, which would like to see regional trade increasingly flowing through the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) undertaking. However, March brought an interesting development when China established a new county, Cenling County, across from the frontier and border checkpoint in question.

Analyst Philip Acey in The Diplomat assesses that “the administrative change hints at China’s plan for greater integration with Afghanistan – and beyond to Central Asia”, adding: “The creation of Cenling County aligns with a broader pattern of deepening regional integration and potentially signals strategic intent to realize the long-discussed Wakhan Road. If completed, the route would reconnect Afghanistan and China for the first time in nearly a century.”

🔗 https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/china-to-open-afghanistan-border-after-nearly-a-century-iran-to-bomb-trump-route-cargo-corridor-journalism-is-where-it-s-at-nowadays/ar-AA28jUv7