America
The system that needed Lindsey Graham
Thomas Karat, behavior analyst
The senator died Saturday night of an aortic dissection, at seventy-one, in the middle of a campaign for a fifth term. His communications director cited the medical examiner’s preliminary finding: a rupture in the body’s largest artery, the consequence of arteriosclerotic cardiovascular disease. The tributes arrived within hours. Trump called him a true American patriot. Volodymyr Zelensky, who had met him twice in the preceding week, called him a friend who was there when it was needed most. Mark Rutte and Benjamin Netanyahu sent their own. Roger Wicker, chairman of the Armed Services Committee, said there were no words to describe Graham’s impact on the foreign and domestic policy of the United States.
There are words. The obituaries have chosen the wrong ones, and in doing so they have skipped the only question worth asking about a man like this. Not whether he was sincere in his convictions — he was, exhaustingly so — but how a senator whose reflexive answer to every foreign crisis was force spent twenty-three years being handed the committee seats, the airtime, and the ear of four presidents that let him act on it. Graham was not an aberration the system tolerated. He was a product the system manufactured, promoted, and kept in stock because he was useful.
Consider the shape of the career. In March 2003, as the bombs fell on Baghdad, Graham told the country that past disagreements should give way to a shared commitment to see the effort through. The war he blessed that day killed more than a quarter of a million Iraqi civilians by the most conservative direct-death counts, birthed the insurgency that became ISIS, and left the country a wreck. He drew no lesson from it. When Libya was broken open in 2011 and left to its warlords, he had backed the intervention. When Syria was pulled apart, he had wanted deeper involvement. Across two decades, the country would be devastated, and Graham’s response to each devastation was to locate the next one.
By February of this year the next one was Iran. On the twenty-sixth, under his own Senate letterhead, Graham published an essay that reads now like a confession left in plain sight. Iran, he wrote, was facing a Berlin Wall moment. The regime was at its weakest point since 1979, and his ultimate hope was that regime change would be achieved. He described the October 7 attacks, in his own phrasing — as a silver lining, because the Israeli campaign that followed had degraded Iran’s military. He praised Trump for pursuing, in his words, peace, not war, in the same paragraphs that celebrated a bombing campaign already under way. The strikes had a name: Operation Midnight Hammer. Graham called it the largest opportunity for peace and prosperity in the Middle East in over a thousand years.
He said the quiet part in Tel Aviv, to reporters, on February 16, less than two weeks before the strikes began. The United States was on the verge of eliminating the largest state sponsor of terrorism in the region. On Fox News, days into the war, he offered the ledger in its rawest form: when the regime goes down, he said, there would be a new Middle East, and the United States would make a tremendous amount of money. Venezuela and Iran held nearly a third of the world’s known oil reserves, he noted, and the point of the exercise was a partnership with those reserves. Regime change as a real-estate transaction. He had made the trip to Israel, the UAE, and Saudi Arabia the week before to reaffirm, he wrote, that all of it was attainable and would be extremely beneficial to the United States. Weeks earlier he had met with Mossad, telling reporters they would tell him things his own government would not.
None of this cost him anything. That is the part the eulogies cannot hold in view, because to hold it in view is to indict the institutions doing the eulogizing. A senator who spent a career being wrong about the consequences of American force — wrong about Iraq, wrong about Libya, wrong about what would follow the fall of every regime he wanted to fall — was never demoted for it. He was promoted. The record of his committee assignments tells the story in the driest possible language. For years he sat on the Armed Services Committee, from which he lectured the Senate that its love for the troops bought nothing, that only appropriations did, that a colleague worried about the budget was out of touch with the world. By the time of his death he chaired the Budget Committee and sat on Appropriations — the panels that write the numbers and bless the spending. The man who wanted every war was placed, again and again, on the committees that pay for them.
Follow the money and the shape sharpens further. Graham’s donors, across a career documented in Federal Election Commission filings, clustered where his positions pointed. The defense contractors — the makers of the aircraft, the missiles, the systems — routed money to his committees and his leadership PACs. The specific career totals sit behind a paywall that blocks automated verification, and so no single figure belongs in this account. But the pattern needs no exact number to be legible. A senator who votes for every weapons system, who calls insufficient defense spending an emergency, who treats the reduction of the military budget as a moral failure, is a senator worth funding for the people who build the weapons. The contributions were not a bribe. They did not need to be. They were an investment in a man who already believed, and who sat where belief could be converted into contracts.
The media completed the machine. Graham was a fixture of the Sunday shows and the cable green rooms for a reason that had nothing to do with wisdom and everything to do with format. He was quotable, available, and reliably hawkish, which made him the perfect guest for programs that reward certainty over accuracy and confrontation over reflection. The pipeline ran in both directions. The airtime made him a national figure, and being a national figure got him more airtime, and the whole apparatus rewarded the escalation it claimed only to be covering. When he called for bombing Iran regardless of Iran’s involvement in a given attack, and told Israel to finish the job, the remarks drew condemnation abroad and bookings at home. The market for a war hawk was deep, and he supplied it.
What made Graham durable was that his convictions never had to survive an election of ideas, only the tolerance of the institutions that housed them. He denounced Trump in 2015 as a race-baiting xenophobic bigot and a jackass, and by his second term was among the president’s most consistent defenders, having discovered that proximity to power mattered more than the content of the man wielding it. The pitch that helped start this year’s war was delivered, according to reporting on the strikes, over rounds of golf. Iran was a spoiler for everything Trump wanted, Graham told him; collapse the regime and it would be Berlin Wall stuff. The president was persuaded. The bombs fell. And when a reporter asked Graham what the plan was for the day after — the question that Iraq should have burned into every hawk in Washington — he answered that it was not his job to know. The future of Iran, he said, was for the Iranian people to determine. He had wanted the war. The consequences belonged to someone else.
That was always the arrangement. The wars were his to advocate and never his to own. He would appear on the morning shows to demand them, sit on the committees to fund them, take the money from the firms that profited from them, and when they curdled into the next disaster he would be on television again, demanding the next one, his authority somehow enhanced rather than diminished by the wreckage behind him. This is not the biography of an outlier. It is the biography of an incentive structure, wearing a man’s face.
He died with the seat already in motion. Within hours, before any burial, the reporting had turned to the scramble to replace him, to the governor who will name a temporary successor, to what his absence means for a Republican majority counting every vote. Trump told NBC he already had someone in mind. The machine that made Lindsey Graham did not pause to mourn him. It began, immediately, to fill the vacancy — because the position he occupied was never really about the man. It was about keeping the seat filled by someone who would say what he said. There is no shortage of applicants. That is the dread the eulogies are built to keep you from feeling. He is gone, and nothing that produced him has changed.
***
Thomas Karat has spent a career in multinational technology corporations and is a behavior analyst holding a Master’s in Science and Communication from Manchester Metropolitan University. His work focuses on the psychology of language in power dynamics, and his graduate thesis examined linguistic deception markers in high-stakes business negotiations. He hosts a YT podcast, SaltCubeAnalytics, and publishes at karat.substack.com
America
US wealthy demolish multimillion-dollar mansions for land
Wealthy buyers in the US are tearing down multimillion-dollar homes shortly after purchasing them for hundreds of millions of dollars.
According to a report by The Wall Street Journal, the trend is driven by a shortage of land in prestigious locations, particularly along coastlines.
For ultra-wealthy buyers, the prime factor has become the land’s location rather than the structure standing on it. After the acquired properties are flattened, newer, more modern homes are built on the cleared lots.
Drawing attention to the shift in the luxury real estate market, the report noted:
“The home itself, formerly the primary driver of an expensive real estate purchase, is now almost beside the point. Buyers are competing first and foremost for well-located land, situated on the ocean or a mountaintop.”
The newspaper cited moves by US billionaire William Lauder as an example. Lauder purchased the oceanfront estate of radio host Rush Limbaugh, who died in March 2023, for $155 million and had it completely demolished in July.
Lauder had previously torn down two homes situated on roughly 1.2 hectares of land along the Palm Beach coast. Having initially planned to construct his own residence on the parcel, Lauder subsequently sold the cleared plot for approximately $200 million.
Jonathan Miller, a real estate appraiser, stated that such transactions are becoming increasingly common as land prices rise.
Amid this momentum, estate agents have also begun marketing luxury homes directly as teardown lots.
Listings use artificial intelligence-generated imagery to showcase how the land would look without the structures on it.
Marketers avoid using the word “demolition” directly, resorting instead to terms such as “adaptive reuse”.
Teardown listings rise across luxury housing market
The trend is not confined to the coast and is spreading to other regions across the US.
Data from property brokerage Redfin reveals that references to demolishing buildings are becoming more frequent in sales listings.
The share of such listings exceeds 15% in the Bunker Hill Village area of Houston, while standing at 6.67% in Pimmit Hills, Virginia.
Dina Goldenteyer, a real estate agent working in Miami, remarked that serial demolitions have become more frequent because buyers no longer appreciate homes older than a decade.
Former retail executives Jamie Dooley and Christine Scott spent $3.7 million in 2020 to demolish a seaside home near Destin, Florida.
Although the couple spent five years building a modern home on the cleared site, they listed the resulting new structure with a demolition condition, citing the fact that no one wanted to buy the property as it stood.
William Paddock, an employee at the environmental consultancy WAP Sustainability, pointed to the environmental damage caused by this construction cycle.
Paddock emphasized that tearing down a home of roughly 1,000 square metres and replacing it with a new building of approximately 2,700 square metres generates a carbon footprint equivalent to the annual emissions of an average 250 American households.
America
US inflation reaches 3.7% as midterm election campaign intensifies
An uptick in September inflation as the US midterm elections approach has pushed the cost-of-living debate back to the centre of the agenda for Democrats seeking to regain control of Congress from Republicans.
Annual inflation stood at 3.7% in September, according to the Consumer Price Index published by the Bureau of Labour Statistics, with energy, petrol, and electricity costs rising on a monthly basis.
Food prices remained flat from August to September, recording a 2.5% increase compared with the same period last year.
Democrats are anchoring their election campaigns to pledges of easing the cost of living, blaming the price increases on President Donald Trump’s tariffs and the war with Iran.
Trump and Republicans, pointing to the numerous left-wing candidates who won primary elections this year, contend that the opposition has become captive to “communists” within the party.
When annual inflation stood at 2.4% in February, the US and Israel launched the Iran war on the final day of that month, and prices continued to climb throughout the conflict.
The recent acceleration has not entirely reversed the retreat from the 40-year peak of 9.1% recorded in June 2022; however, the rate has remained above the Federal Reserve’s 2% target for over five years.
Fed policymakers raised the benchmark interest rate by a quarter of a percentage point last month, citing the battle against stubborn inflation. Officials will convene again next week to consider whether to raise rates or hold them within the 3.75% to 4% target range.
Energy and fuel record sharpest increase since first month of war
In September, energy prices posted their largest monthly jump since March, the first full month of the war with Iran, climbing 20.4% year-on-year. Energy costs had risen 2.1% from July to August, after falling 1.5% from June to July and 5.7% from May to June.
Recent escalations in Iranian attacks on oil tankers in the Strait of Hormuz, alongside more frequent strikes by Ukrainian forces against Russian refineries, have strained global crude oil and refined product markets, driving up US petrol and diesel prices.
Petrol prices also recorded their sharpest monthly increase since the first month of the war, climbing 9.1% from August to September, bringing the annual increase to 35.3%.
American Automobile Association (AAA) data shows the average price of regular petrol across the US stands at $4.26 per gallon; while below the level of roughly $4.48 recorded a month ago, it remains more than $1.20 higher than a year earlier. Average gallon prices exceed $6 in California and $5 in both Washington state and Nevada.
Electricity prices rose 0.2% from August to September, offsetting the 0.2% decline between July and August, and were up 4.4% year-on-year.
Heavy power demand from new data centres is feeding through into local household electricity bills. Trump argued that companies must cover the cost of the electricity required by their data centres themselves.
In a post on Truth Social, Trump claimed that he was requiring large data centres to generate their own power and feed the surplus back into the local grid, suggesting this could bring about “a major drop” in electricity prices.
Used vehicle market posts monthly rise as food costs stabilise
The cost of food at home fell 0.1% month-on-month in September, while dining out increased 0.2%.
Egg prices dropped to $2.27 a dozen, falling roughly 35% compared with September 2025 and remaining well below the 20-year peak of $6.23 recorded in March 2025.
Ground beef prices rose roughly 2.4% compared with September 2025, but at $6.48 a pound, they remained below the 20-year high of $6.98 reached in June.
Chicken held steady at its year-earlier level of $2.06 per pound last month, having fluctuated between $2.01 and $2.09 since November 2024.
Used car and truck prices fell 1.5% compared with September 2025, but rose 0.7% month-on-month in September following 0.4% increases in both July and August.
Heather Long, chief economist at Navy Federal Credit Union, noted that the sector faces severe pressure stemming from a combination of expensive replacement parts and a shortage of skilled labour.
Speaking to The Hill, Long emphasised that every cost pressure across the market is being felt directly at local auto repair shops.
America
Anthropic posts $80.7bn loss ahead of IPO as computing costs soar
Anthropic, developer of the artificial intelligence model Claude, reported a net loss of $80.7 billion for the first six months of 2026 ending 30 June.
According to a report by The Wall Street Journal citing the company’s draft initial public offering prospectus, this recorded loss nearly doubled the $42 billion loss incurred across the entirety of 2025.
The vast majority of that enormous figure, accounting for $72 billion, stemmed from accounting-driven book-value write-downs.
In contrast, the company saw a sharp surge in revenue, with turnover in the first half of the year climbing to $16.3 billion from $1.1 billion in the same period of the prior year.
During this period, Anthropic spent approximately $9 billion on computing power and infrastructure needs, surpassing in just six months the $7.3 billion spent across the whole of 2025.
The company has commitments to pay roughly $450 billion over the next seven to 10 years under cloud service contracts.
Under these obligations, contracts are planned for $111 billion with Google Cloud, $110 billion with Amazon Web Services, and $31 billion with Microsoft.
Anthropic will also spend up to $86 billion by 2033 and 2034, respectively, to lease Nvidia chips through smaller AI-focused cloud providers Nscale and Lambda.
The company could spend an additional $750 billion in the coming years to expand its computing capacity.
Roughly a third of the draft IPO prospectus was dedicated directly to risk factors.
The document highlighted the possibility that models could cause tangible real-world harm, noting that artificial intelligence could exhibit a “self-preservation” tendency and produce responses resembling “blackmail”.
Anthropic warned that the scale of damage caused by an AI-driven “catastrophic event” could render insuring against such risks impossible.
According to market expectations, Anthropic’s IPO could rank among the largest transactions in history, potentially surpassing SpaceX’s record.
Following the market debut, the company’s market valuation is projected to reach up to $2 trillion.
-
Europe2 weeks agoBerlin Left Party backs Israel’s right to exist for coalition pact
-
America2 weeks agoHow will Brazil’s presidential runoff work?
-
Diplomacy2 weeks agoThe West is preparing for war not with Russia, but with its own people, French analyst Georges Kuzmanovic insists
-
Russia2 weeks ago71 EU lawmakers demand closure of Russian Houses in 15 member states
-
Europe2 weeks agoMI6 investigates potential leaks after former BND chief is detained
-
Russia2 weeks agoUS and Russian figures discuss American stake in Nord Stream lines
-
Russia2 weeks agoDrone strike shuts down Yandex data centre in Russia’s Ryazan region
-
America2 weeks agoTrump weighs presidential memorandum to cut surging US diesel prices
