Analyzing the new defense pact between Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Turkey.

 

The leadership of Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. AP. 

Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Turkey have joined a new defensive pact. AP. The Mecca Joint Defense Agreement would treat an attack on any member as an attack on all members. The members say that the pact isn't directed at any specific country, but many feel it could be directed at Iran. The alliance is powerful, Turkey has huge conventional military, Saudi Arabia has a lot of soft power in the region and is rich, while Pakistan has nuclear weapons and an experienced military. However, the agreement is not as strong as a formal alliance like NATO. 

My Comment:

This news broke a few days ago, but the news cycle is slow today and there isn't much else to talk about besides primary election results. And it is a huge story, this is a large alliance and could have serious implications down the line. 

This is a very powerful alliance, and I think only one country could realistically challenge it, and that's the United States. All three of these countries have huge amounts of troops, large professional militaries and some limited power projection. And, of course, they have nuclear weapons. 

The alliance faces major logistical issues though. None of these countries share a border and Turkey and Pakistan aren't even in the same region. They could support each other in a war against Iran, obviously, since all of them are in striking range of Iran, but what if they get into a conflict with another country? I think they would have extreme difficulty in accomplishing much. 

And honestly, I think that Iran is the least likely country to trigger this alliance right now. Iran has largely been degraded in terms of military power and could not afford to launch a war against Saudi Arabia or Pakistan any time soon. I guess they could continue to launch attacks against US bases in Saudi Arabia and that could trigger the pact, but I honestly don't see the Saudis calling people into the war given they haven't really joined it in the first place. 

The real threats to a larger regional war are India and, to a much lesser degree, Israel. Pakistan and India have had several conflicts in the last decade and all of the conditions that led to that conflict (terrorism, border disputes, religious differences) still exists. Should a conflict break out, it's very possible that Pakistan could call their allies into the conflict, leading to a larger regional war. 

However, this scenario would be the most difficult for the Saudis and the Turks to help out. They don't really have a land route to send troops, so they would have to go by see. Even assuming they had the shipping capability, they would have to somehow evade Indian attacks on their supply convoys. And given that Turkey and Saudi Arabia have closer ties to India than Pakistan, obviously, it's possible the alliance could fall apart.

And Israel? A war between Turkey and Israel isn't as unlikely as you think. There has been tensions over Turkey's actions in Syria and there is evidence that Israel no longer considers Iran to be their number one rival. But a conflict between Turkey and Israel, perhaps in Syria, would be difficult for the other members to help out with. The Pakistanis are too far away, and while the Saudis could help, they have closer ties to Israel. 

Regardless, I don't think too much will come from this pact, barring a major war between India and Pakistan. It's mostly symbolic in nature and is probably more about keeping Iran from dragging them into the war than anything else. 

Teenagers faced a tight job market in 2026.

 

A teenager that was able to find a job. Fortune.

Teenagers faced a tight job market in 2026. Fortune. Around 790,000 jobs opened up for teenagers in May, June and July this year, down from 801,000 last year. Teenagers are popular hires for low skill jobs, but competition this year has been fierce. Teenagers report "ghosting" for applications and larger numbers of rejections for even low skill jobs. Some teenagers have resorted to going door to door, handing their resumes in person and even starting their own businesses. 

My Comment:

This is a disturbing trend and it shows that teens are one of the bigger losers of a changing economy. Teens should be able to work basically at will and it builds character to have a first job before they hit 20. If that doesn't happen, than a lot of teens are going to miss out and growing up. 

Teens working is also a good way for them to help pay for college or even help their parents if they are having a tough time. With college prices out of control, it's disturbing that a lot of teens can't even attempt to help pay for it because they can't find steady work. And it's even worse for kids not going to college, they simply can't find work. 

So why is this happening. A lot of it is automation, including AI. You can see this in fast food. The McDonalds around here largely have reduced their staff and installed order kiosks. Though I haven't seen any AI order bots yet, they have rolled out in some places. This means instead of a half dozen teens and a manager, there are usually only two or three employees. Indeed, this is why I tend to go to Culvers, a regional burger chain, because they don't do this, every time I go they have half a dozen employees at the counters, one or two at the drive through window and one or two running burgers out to cars. Plus, the service and quality is dramatically better. 

There were always going to be winners and losers of the AI revolution and teenagers as a group seem to be one of them. McJobs were a great job for kids as it's hard enough that they develop, but not so hard that teens can't handle it. But a lot of these jobs are gone. 

Another problem is, of course, immigration. Many of the jobs that were once dominated by teenagers have been taken by immigrants instead, be they legal or illegal. Most articles downplay this, for obvious reasons, but you can't tell me that bringing in 10 million immigrants during Biden's term didn't tighten up the job market. Deportation is helping this, slowly, but it hasn't been enough to overturn the trend. 

Some of this is on the teenagers themselves. A lot of them aren't even trying to find jobs. Boomers tend to think that this is because the Zoomers and Generation Alpha are all lazy, and there might be a little truth to it, but I think it has more to do with them just being discouraged. 

And I think modern HR practices are a big problem too. There's so many jobs posted that HR managers don't even pretend they are going to hire for, many of which end up going to H1B visas. And the new AI guided HR also tends to filter out low skill workers like teens. This makes it feel like the game is rigged against teenagers, and it's hard to argue otherwise. 

I don't think this is going to get better any time soon. AI and automation is getting worse, not better. And even though immigration enforcement is working a little, it's not fast enough to actually do much. And neither party really seems to care about what is happening with teenagers and young adults, if you aren't over the age of 65, they don't care about you at all. 

Bipartisan opposition to Flock cameras has led to communities abandoning the controversial technology.

 

A Flock camera. Politico/AP. 

Bipartisan opposition to Flock cameras has led to communities abandoning the controversial technology. Politico. In July alone, 20 communities have ended the use of the cameras, which track vehicles and record their license plates with AI. Both Republicans and Democrats have criticized the cameras saying that the potential for abuse by the government is too high, though they disagree who the targets would be. Flock says their cameras don't violate civil liberties and help solve crimes, but some local leaders have said the cameras were not as useful as sold. Efforts to expand Flock devices beyond fixed locations, such as by using drones, have increased the backlash. 

My Comment:

The opposition to Flock cameras has to be one of the most bipartisan things I have seen in America today. Nobody seems to like these devices and it's one of the few things that both Republicans and Democrats (and Libertarians) agree about. Everyone hates these cameras. 

Why? I think most people understand they could be used against them. Republicans fear that their travel habits could expose to the government things like trips to church or the gun range. They also fear that such cameras could restrict their freedom of movement if a civil war were to happen. 

The Democrats fear that these cameras could track people leaving the state for an abortion or track folks like Antifa. They also fear that it could be used to track and deport illegal immigrants, despite the fact that the federal government does not use these cameras in the DHS. 

And both sides are right. There was a case in my state where a man was traveling to Michigan and was tracked by these cameras. This was used as a pretext to pull over and arrest him as they claimed traveling to Michigan was probable cause for a stop. He got arrested for marijuana possession, which is legal in Michigan but illegal in Wisconsin. 

And that's just government over reach, these cameras are being abused in other ways. There have been many cases where folks have been tracking their spouses or exes with these cameras. There is no law enforcement excuse there. 

What does get me about Flock is how it seems to have been a final straw when it comes to Americans. Folks hate these things and are aggressively vandalizing and taking them down wherever they show up. Folks are showing up to city council meetings and are successfully lobbying to get these cameras taken down. And there is even talk of jury nullification for the folks taking down the cameras! 

I've got mixed feelings about that. I do view these cameras as a civil rights violation, if they are allowed to continue, do we even have a 4th Amendment right? I know it's generally accepted that you don't have a right to privacy while in public but I doubt the founding fathers would have wanted the government to be able to track your every move. So I am glad that these cameras are getting a backlash. 

But why not everything else? Flock cameras are hardly the only thing recording me when I go to work. There's ring cameras on my neighbors houses, people filming while I drive by, regular surveillance cameras on the highway and my phone is tracking me too. And sure, it's not the government doing those things, but then you get things like Digital ID which has bipartisan support. So if the government tracks your movement, it's a problem, but if they track you online it's suddenly ok? 

Still, I am glad that there is a backlash. America is in the position where we seem to take two steps back for every one step forward and I think people are sick and tired of the way the government is behaving at the local level. It doesn't have to be this way and the opposition to flock cameras is refreshing. 

However, will things actually change? Who knows? For every city that abandons Flock, a few more pick it up. I think it's probably going to require legislation or a major court case in order to actually stop these cameras, and I don't know if there is the political will or a legal argument that will actually end this. 

President Trump has denied that US munitions stockpiles are depleted and vowed to punish leakers.

 

US President Donald Trump. BBC/Getty.

President Trump has denied reports that US munitions stockpiles are depleted and has vowed to punish leakers. BBC. Reports earlier in the week said that the US was running low on certain important weapons, including long range attack missiles and anti-air defense missiles. President Trump denied reports that he confronted Secretary of War Pete Hegseth for the supposed shortfalls. Trump also said that the leakers were "treasonous" since information on American weapons stockpiles are classified. 

My Comment:

This story is a mess on multiple levels and it's very hard to determine what the actual truth of this story is. I do know that all of the reports are from anonymous sources and none of them provided any documents that prove their claims. It's also very clear that Trump still has many enemies in the defense department and they absolutely could and would make things up to hurt Trump and his Administration. 

On the other hand, it's also very clear that a lot of weapons have been expended in the Iran conflict, most notably the anti-air defenses, like Patriot missiles and THAAD. They are our premier anti-air defenses and the Patriots were already low, due in part to the previous Iran conflict, our support of Ukraine and sales to allies. I would also believe that we have used a lot of our long range missiles, the ATACMS and the new PrSM weapons, which we never had many of in the first place. 

But even if the reports are true, Trump is also right in that we are in no way low on weapons. We still have plenty of Tomahawk missiles and our air and naval assets are, if not unlimited, enough to conduct a war for a very long time. Plus, stockpiles are expected to draw down during a conflict, especially one where we have launched as many major attacks as we have in this one. 

What is clear is that President Trump is angry about these stories. And he is absolutely right to be. It's clear that Iran was happy to hear this and though they probably have a more accurate ability to judge US firepower, having this story out there may give them some false hope that they can outlast the United States. And it's going to complicate any possible peace deal. Indeed, news broke today that Iran is making unreasonable demands for peace again, and these stories might be why. 

Keep in mind that information warfare is real too. By any rational standard, Iran has been utterly destroyed in this conflict and has no real hope of winning the war. But there is a lot of noise out there about how Iran is going to outlast the United States, and this release is absolutely going to fuel that. 

So will the leakers be charged with treason? Almost certainly not. Finding them will probably be difficult in the first place, assuming the media isn't making the sources up. But even if they are, treason charges are very unlikely. Constitutionally, treason is extremely hard to prove and this conduct doesn't reach that standard, plus there is unlikely to be two witnesses willing and able to testify. They absolutely could be charged with espionage, but treason? Not unless we change the constitution. 

What is my take on US stockpiles? I think we have drawn them down quite a bit, but not so much that we can't conduct war. I would believe that we are out or basically out of PsRM's since they are new weapon that hasn't been produced for very long, but I think we should have enough of the other weapons cited for a longer conflict. 

Still, I do think that even if it isn't a problem now, it could be if the war lasts much longer. If, God forbid, we are still talking about the conflict with Iran by the end of Fall, or even worse, next year, then yeah, we will probably run out of these weapons, maybe sooner if the conflict escalates. It's a good non-political reason to try and end the conflict, but the problem is that the Iranians are insane. 

Regardless, the real losers here are Ukraine. Even if we do run out of some weapons, America will be fine and will be able to continue the war. But Ukraine? They are basically out of Patriot missiles, and that is a huge problem for them because Patriots are the only weapon that even has a chance at shooting down Russian ballistic missiles. Regardless of the actual numbers, we absolutely have used a lot of our patriots and the cupboards are bare for Ukraine, and that's probably true to a lesser degree for our ATACMS. 

Of course, our support of Ukraine is a major reason that our stockpiles have been depleted. The weapons we gave to Ukraine did deplete our stocks and though those gifts aren't going to be equal to what we have used in the conflict, it's unquestionable that if we had a more sane Ukraine policy over the past decade, we would be in better shape than we are now. Indeed, I warned about this very possibility when we started giving Ukraine these weapons. 

As for the Iran War, I do think it will end sooner, rather than later. No matter how much the media and the Democrats want Iran to win the conflict, they absolutely cannot do so. This report may have delayed a deal by a few weeks, but I do think that it will end. And, of course, Trump can always throw up his hands and unilaterally end the war himself. 

A federal judge rules section of the National Firearms Act regulating suppressors and short barreled rifles is unconstitutional.

 

Firearms, two of which are equipped with suppressors. New York Times/Reuters. 

A federal judge in Texas has ruled that the section of the National Firearms Act regulating suppressors and short barreled rifles is unconstitutional. New York Times. The NFA was always justified under tax law, but once Congress removed the $200 tax stamp for suppressors and short barreled rifles, it was no longer constitutional. Gun rights groups sued after Congress acted and this is the first victory against the NFA. The Judge did stay the order to give the defendant, the ATF, a chance to appeal the order, though it is not known if they will do so. 

My Comment:

Some clarifications are in order here. This ruling didn't suddenly rule the NFA act null in void. It only applies to the parties to the lawsuit, which includes several gun rights groups, most notably the Gun Owners of America, manufacturers and dealers, most notably the Palmetto State Armory, and 15 States that join lawsuits, including Texas, Alaska, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, West Virginia, Wyoming. 

For an individual that wants to buy an NFA restricted item, your options would be to either join one of the gun rights groups or purchase from one of the companies that were involved in the lawsuit, like Palmetto State Armory and Silencerco. And even then, it would have to be legal in your state, some states bar possession of all NFA items, even ones that are legal to own federally. And, of course, you would have to pass the normal background checks you have to do when you buy any new firearm.

Also keep in mind that this doesn't go into effect just yet. The judge gave the federal government seven days to appeal and until then, nothing changes. And there is a good chance that the government will indeed appeal.

There is a chance they won't. The Trump Administration is generally pro-gun and Trump himself signed the bill that caused the lawsuit in the first place. They have even filed lawsuits against gun laws in blue states so it's very possible they will just let this ruling stand. 

However, there is also a good chance they will appeal. It's possible the intuitional inertia will force an appeal. The lawyers at the ATF might not want to give up the power they get from the National Firearms Act and won't want the order to stand. And, given this is the deep state we are talking about, it's possible someone will go rogue. 

Regardless, I think this is a victory. The rules against suppressors and short barreled rifles were always nonsensical. Indeed, suppressors are a safety feature that protects hearing and some countries, notably France, require their use. And short barreled rifles? You can buy a "pistol" that is a de facto SBR anyways, so the regulation is pointless. Especially after last week's incident where a man helped stop a mass shooter with a suppressed FN Five-seveN. 

Time will tell how this plays out. I do think that this portion of the NFA will eventually be destroyed. I guess it would be easy for this specific ruling to be reversed by Congress putting back the stamp tax, but that seems unlikely given the political realities of the foreseeable future. I do hope that the entire bill is removed eventually, I consider the regulations on destructive devices and fully automatic weapons to be just as tyrannical.