Trump 2.0 – Iran

Flag of Iran

Next in our Trump 2.0 list, we have Iran. This is one of those countries that is quite isolated from the US, so Trump can have a bit more fun with his policies.

Places like Russia and China are complex and require jumping through hoops to have anything stick. Naturally, Trump’s big-talk-no-walk strategy didn’t work so well against these powers, but Iran is different. The country is isolated from the US and the risk of blowback from actions against them is limited.

So, in his first term, Trump put the pressure on Iran by cutting off oil exports. However, they quickly developed a “shadow fleet” to circumvent that. Trump’s next step would be to impose secondary sanctions to disrupt the “shadow fleet”. There’s the option to involve the military with blockades, but that risks destabilizing the global maritime system.

Until Trump and his administration show the capacity to come up with policies that manage the fallout of any new actions against Iran, let’s hope that Trump doesn’t start swinging his sledgehammer too hard.

Prefer to read the transcript? Click here

Here at Zeihan on Geopolitics, our chosen charity partner is MedShare. They provide emergency medical services to communities in need, with a very heavy emphasis on locations facing acute crises. Medshare operates right in the thick of it, so we can be sure that every cent of our donation is not simply going directly to where help is needed most, but our donations serve as a force multiplier for a system already in existence.

For those who would like to donate directly to MedShare or to learn more about their efforts, you can click this link.

Learn about medshare here

Transcript

Hi everyone. Peter Zeihan here coming to you from Blenheim, New Zealand. And today we’re going to do the third in our open ended series of the challenges awaiting the incoming administration of president elect Trump. We’ve already dealt China, Russia. Today we’re going to tackle Iran. And unlike China and Russia, who had a great record of manipulating the former and future presidents in their first term, which really set back American strategic policy in both regions quite a bit. 

Iran is on the opposite side. And the reason is pretty straightforward. If you want to reign in Russia, it requires a coalition of powers to cut off technology and transfer and energy purchases. It was integrated into the system and the sort of coalition building that is required to contain or beat back a country like Russia is extreme. 

And Trump isn’t a builder. He can’t manage his own government. He can’t, direct things. He’s not a guy who has a command of the details, or allows the people who have the command of the details to influence policy. It’s a one man show with Trump and the details that are required. The breadth of expertise that is required just isn’t allowed to function in his administration in China. 

Same general topic. But instead of allies, although you do need allies to contain China, the technical expertise that is required is is extreme. The American Chinese relationship is one of the deepest economically in human history. And the idea that one person, no matter how intelligent, could see the INS and the outs and the consequences and even perceive the tools is kind of silly. 

So Trump would go for a big deal and then he’d walk away. The Chinese would never implement the deal. And there we were. So even at the height of Covid, when we realized that something like half of the medications that Americans use every day, especially the cheaper ones, were being made in China, even when there was bipartisan support to do something about it. 

He could not lead in order to bring that stuff back. Same with protective gear. Anyway, it made policy on China very difficult. Policy on Russia. Very difficult because there was never any consistency. There was never any follow through. None of that really applies to Iran, because ever since 1979, when the Iranian revolution occurred and the mullahs came to power, ever since then, the United States has basically separated Iran from everything that it cares apart bit by bit over the last eight presidents. 

So by the time you got to the Trump’s first term, there was no fear of a blowback to the American economy if you were just to crush Iran completely. And so we got what we called a maximum pressure campaign, which was nothing of the sort. But it did succeed in driving almost all of Iran’s oil exports out of the normal financial system, meaning that the Iranians could still export, but they had to use alternative means. 

They had to build a shadow fleet. 

And it’s not somewhere between 10 and $30 a barrel off of their margins for all the crude that they did export. So a lot of it did go underground. 

It didn’t go away. But the profits that the Iranians were able to reap from it dropped precipitously. And all the while in the background, the American Revolution was churning the pace, displacing some of those barrels on the international market and certainly dropping the price of global oil prices to hit the Iranians with a double blow. Now, since then, the Iranians have taken a lot of hits. 

Hezbollah and Hamas are in a box. Basically, Syria is gone. These are all proxies and allies of the Iranian system, the most capable militant force that is allied with Iran right now outside of Iran’s own borders or the Houthis, which I would argue are some of the most incompetent militants in the world. If it wasn’t for the equipment that was coming in from Iran, we wouldn’t care about them at all. 

And so taking Donald Trump’s sledgehammer approach to, to, diplomacy and strategy probably doesn’t work very well in places like Russia and China. But in Iran, it really could. Because if you were to somehow remove Iran’s crude from the market, which, based on the data, is somewhere between a half 1,000,001.5 million barrels of exports, there would be a ripple through global energy markets. 

Yes. But this isn’t the 1980s when 4 million barrels suddenly disappeared. And this isn’t China, where it’s the largest trading partner of a number of countries in the world, including, most of our allies, in Asia. So you smash China, everyone feels it for years, especially if they’ve been prepared. 

If you smash Iran, the global outcome is relatively limited, and it’s concentrated on countries like China that import the bulk of the crude that the Iranians send out. So you’ve got this weird situation where it’s an atypical power that is not heavily internationally invested. The United States is not involved with it in economic matters. And the tools that Trump would bring to bear. 

While they seem simplistic and in many ways, they are would actually work. So there’s two things that you should expect to see. Number one, you should expect to see the Trump administration come up with a series of secondary sanctions to target Iranian oil on a broader scale. Now, it used to be that the biggest hole in all of this was the Europeans. 

So the United States was established sanctions and maybe even a degree of secondary sanctions. But then the Germans, the French, would basically ignore them and claim that the Americans were exercising extra territoriality with which they were, and find ways to deal with Iran independently. But ever since things, that have boiled up in the Middle East with Hezbollah and Syria, the Europeans are taking a very different stance, taking a much stronger stance against Iran, are more likely to cooperate this time around. 

That just leaves countries like India and China, especially on the other side of this, which is something that the Trump administration isn’t going to care about all that much. But if you basically get the entire Western world, participating in the financial section’s sanctions and then start playing secondary sanctions to China, we’re in a situation where you can actually move the ball down the field quite a bit. 

The second thing, the more important thing is to go after the oil itself. Now, if you remember the term shadow fleet, these are older tankers primarily, that operate without transponders, that don’t use the US dollar system, that are basically operating under the radar of global finance. Oftentimes they deal with physical transfer of gold and or cash, typically US dollars or euros, to send money directly from the, country that is doing the buy in to the countries is doing the selling. 

So normally when you are buying or selling crude, the country that is doing the buying does basically fancy wire transfer. I’m oversimplifying here, but it’s basically goes through the financial system so it can be regulated. Most of that has been shut off. So now you either have them using the yuan as an intermediary or them literally physically transporting cash from point A to point B. 

Most of the countries that are participating in sales, with the shadow fleets, want the physical currency because it is more, exchangeable for everything else that they would need. You can only do so much with. You want to anyway. This means that the only way to really disrupt the Shadow fleet is go after the fleet itself. 

Now, in the case of, say, the Russian shadow fleet that’s going through the Baltic, the Scandinavians can always make up an environmental reason to grab a ship and dock it. But that means eventually they have to let it go. If you want to go after runs, you have to go after the ships themselves and not let them go. 

Now, from a tactical point of view, an operational point of view, this is very, very easy. The Iranians don’t have a navy that is more than speedboats. And the Indian Ocean basin is a pretty big place. So if the United States decided it wanted to blockade Iranian crude coming out of the Strait of Hormuz, it would really be child’s play from an operational point of view. 

The question is, what then happens to the broader maritime experience? Because if you get the global naval superpower, the one that’s several times as powerful as everyone else’s navies combined, even before you consider that the second and the third most powerful navy in the world are tight American allies in Japan, in the United Kingdom. If you get the U.S. Navy involved in taking civilian ships out of the system, we’re entering a new world. 

And while the Trump administration certainly could do that, it would then have to come up with a replacement system, because once the ocean blue is no longer safe, the way we handled shirts changes and the way we handle patrols changed because other countries will start doing it, too, when we very rapidly get a breakdown in global agriculture, energy and manufacturing. 

I’m not saying this won’t happen. I’m saying that I don’t think the Trump administration or the Trump administration has thought through what the next step is. So I did a piece a few days ago talking about how events with the shadow fleet in Russia, events in Scandinavia, events in the Middle East were all pushing us towards this world where the maritime system simply shatters, and most of the ships that sail the ocean blue, especially long haul ships, simply won’t be able to function. 

If you really want to go after Iran’s shadow fleet, if you really want to do a true maximum pressure campaign, that also means breaking the system. The question is whether or not the Trump administration come up with some way to soften the blow, so it doesn’t automatically wreck everything else. I’m not sure that’s a circle that can be squared. 

But if there is a way to do it, it will require some significant policy creativity, which, Trump team has never really shown. And it’ll show the ability to adapt to changing circumstances, which the Trump team has never really shown. And it will require coming up with an alternate system in which all of the major powers of the world naval powers of the world are in broad agreement as to what this should be, and diplomatically, that requires action that the Trump administration previously has not shown. 

And I don’t mean this so much as a condemnation of the Trump team specifically. I don’t think Team Biden could have figured out. I don’t think Team Obama had certainly no Team Obama couldn’t figure it out. The last president might have had the gravitas and kind of the command of the details to it was George Herbert Walker Bush. 

He obviously wanted to go a different direction that we didn’t follow. So we’ve always known that globalization was going to break sooner or later. This is one of those things that could do it. In the meantime, if you’re Iran, things are about to get rough because there are very few reasons for the Trump administration not to swing the sledgehammer. 

This isn’t Russia where there’s some strategic implications that involve nukes. This isn’t China where you’ve got a very deep interlaced economic relationship. This is a country that the Trump team knows from previous experience that it can really hurt. And now they’re looking for ways to hurt it more. The question is whether or not it gets to the point that has broader implications. 

And that will only be determined by the steps that the Trump team takes in its opening weeks. What I can tell you for sure, though, is that unlike China, unlike Russia, which are thorny issues and require a degree of collaboration, Iran doesn’t and team Trump knows that, and they are looking forward to this with giddy anticipation. 

Jimmy Carter and Jihad – MNNO’s Take

You heard Peter’s take yesterday…and now you get a different perspective on Jimmy Carter’s “legacy”.

Cover photo from Wikimedia Commons 

Here at Zeihan on Geopolitics, our chosen charity partner is MedShare. They provide emergency medical services to communities in need, with a very heavy emphasis on locations facing acute crises. Medshare operates right in the thick of it, so we can be sure that every cent of our donation is not simply going directly to where help is needed most, but our donations serve as a force multiplier for a system already in existence.

For those who would like to donate directly to MedShare or to learn more about their efforts, you can click this link.

Learn about medshare here

Israel’s Strategy for Iranian Nukes

Photo of Israeli Troops overlooking an area

With the Iranians eyeing nukes, why haven’t regional powers like the Israelis stepped in and squashed those dreams?

Targeting Iran’s nuclear capabilities isn’t so straightforward. Plutonium is a byproduct of civilian nuclear reactors (and they’re not going to target those), uranium is abundant and can be sourced fairly easily, and uranium enrichment centrifuges can be easily moved…so, targeting their nuclear infrastructure is impractical.

Israel has opted to disrupt Iran’s nuclear hopes in other ways. They eliminate key experts via assassination programs, launch cyberattacks and keep tactical airstrikes in their back pocket. And given Iran’s declining industrial capabilities, this nuclear program serves more as a bargaining chip than a serious attempt at weaponization.

Should Iran fly a little too close to the sun and get a nuke within arm’s reach, you should expect Israel and Saudi Arabia to quickly put them in their place.

Prefer to read the transcript? Click here

Here at Zeihan on Geopolitics, our chosen charity partner is MedShare. They provide emergency medical services to communities in need, with a very heavy emphasis on locations facing acute crises. Medshare operates right in the thick of it, so we can be sure that every cent of our donation is not simply going directly to where help is needed most, but our donations serve as a force multiplier for a system already in existence.

For those who would like to donate directly to MedShare or to learn more about their efforts, you can click this link.

Learn about medshare here

Transcript

Hey everybody. Peter Zeihan here. Coming to you from three sisters in Taranaki, New Zealand. And today we’re taking a question from the Patreon family. Specifically why Israel hasn’t struck at Iranian nuclear facilities in an attempt to prevent the Iranians from ever developing a bomb in the first place. And there’s a number of reasons for this. But the core issue is this. 

And there’s too much to go after to do it reliably. So let’s go through the materials of what you need to to make a meaningful bomb. First of all, you need the raw materials, either uranium or plutonium. Now, any civilian nuclear power reactor is going to generate a lot of plutonium as a byproduct. So we’ve got about a one gigawatt, power plant, which for a nuclear power plant is pretty much a run of the mill. 

You’re going to generate enough waste plutonium every year to make about a dozen plutonium bombs. So unless you’re going to take out the nuclear facilities, you’re not going to be able to remove that from their supply chain. And, bombing a civilian nuclear power plant obviously comes with a few consequences. As for uranium, uranium is one of the most common materials on Earth. 

And so it’s very easy to source. In the early Cold War days, when we thought it was rare, we, the United States, cut a deal with the Australians who at the time had most of the global production, basically cornered the market. But since then, it’s been discovered in all kinds of places. And the world’s largest producers are Canada, Australia, Kazakhstan, Russia and China. 

So, you know, removing those countries from the mix. Yeah, I’m not going to happen. Even if you did. Ultimately, you only need a few tonnes of the ore to generate the yellowcake that you need, in order to generate the finished metal that you need for lutetium. So going after the raw materials really isn’t a play. Moving up the value added scale, however, you get some more options because, you know, these raw materials don’t do anything, by themselves. 

You need the system that’s necessary to purify and extract the plutonium from the waste material and then purified in the metal. There are a lot of chemicals you can go after there. But again, most of those are globally available under the civilian supply chain. So it’s a limited on the uranium front. 

If you have your raw uranium ore, you basically have to mix it with chlorine gas to make a material that you can then run through a centrifuge over and over and over and over to extract the specific type of uranium that is fissile, that can go into a bomb. Those centrifuges are definitely a weak point in the process that is restricted technology. 

And in order to have a weapons program of size, you also need a lot of them. Now, the problem here is it doesn’t matter where those things are. You could have a cluster of a few thousand in one place. You could disperse it. And whenever people talk about striking Iran’s weapons systems, the Iranians just move the centrifuges around because they can be easily individually loaded into trucks and move wherever they want. 

So, you know, you do a single round of airstrikes, you might get some of them. You’re certainly not going to get all of them. And you only need so much of this stuff in order to make a bomb. Then you’ve got the the metallurgy. There are different types of weapons systems, that use plutonium and uranium, and there’s different ways that you can combine them to make an explosive product. 

But this is an engineering question. And ultimately, this is where the Israelis have chosen to focus. Can’t go after the raw materials. You can’t go after the equipment. You go after the people with the experience of how to turn these processed materials into something that can go boom. And so Israel focuses on what it does well. Instead of surgical strikes, they have an assassination program. 

And whenever an Iranian nuclear scientist starts to get a little bit too productive, he tends to, fall down some stairs after getting shot in the back of the head with some bullets. So it’s not that the Israelis aren’t doing anything to contain this threat, it’s that they’re striking the weak point in the system, which is the personnel. 

One of the wild things about Iran is that their industrial base today is significantly less sophisticated than it was back in 1980. This is a country that has been in long term industrial decline for any number of reasons, sanctions of which are only one part of it. And that means the Israelis have found it actually pretty easy to pick off individual people who are involved in the weapon system in order to snarl the whole system. 

Now, that doesn’t mean that’s the only thing they do. They also engage in a degree of sabotage and cyber hacks. And if push came to shove, I have no doubt that they’re willing to do tactical airstrikes. But you’re talking about something that can be dispersed. You’re talking about something that once you do start going after it, the, receiving country, Iran in this case, has a vested interest in keeping the system as dispersed as possible and then accelerating the work. 

So until now, the Iranian nuclear program has mostly been a negotiating chip that they are willing to trade away in exchange for a broader deal specifically with the United States. And that’s one of the reasons why this technology, which was developed in the 40s, still hasn’t been replicated in the Persian Gulf. There’s also a strategic side to this. 

Israel is already a nuclear power. And if the Israelis ever really did feel that the Iranians were getting close, they’d probably use their own systems to make sure that Iran could never cross the threshold and they’d do a preemptive nuclear strike. The other side of the strategic question is Iran is not alone in the neighborhood. Closer to home. 

Just across the Persian Gulf are the Saudis and the Saudis and the Iranians don’t care for each other very much. And the big difference between these two is that Saudi Arabia has much deeper pockets. So if Push ever did really come to shove, and it did look like Iran was going to develop a functional weapon, not only would they be risking a preemptive Israeli nuclear strike, but the Saudis would probably just go out, write a check, and buy some nukes from another country, most notably Pakistan. 

So for Iran, the nuclear card is not nearly as valuable as most people seem to think it is, because they know if they even try to draw it from the deck, they’re gonna get hammered real hard. So this is something I worry about. Not really. And whenever there’s something in the Middle East that I don’t worry about, I call that a win. 

Israel Attacks Iran, Again – Part 1 & 2

An Israeli F-35I "Adir", the model of aircraft reported to have taken part in the strikes.

Part 1

Recently, Iran attacked Israel, again. And so last night Israel attacked Iran, again. Believe it or not, this is normal AND good news! At least until the Russians come to the party.

Part 2

Now that we’ve had a bit more time to see what happened in Israel’s latest attack on Iran, let’s dive a bit deeper. Israel struck military facilities like missile storage and production sites, but avoided nuclear and oil infrastructure.

This damage will set Iran’s missile capabilities back for a while, but these defenses were lackluster to begin with. A more significant takeaway from this attack was the absence of any meaningful resistance for the Israeli aircraft, which pokes some serious holes in the Russian-made S-300s and similar Chinese models.

Israel’s attack not only diminishes Iran’s military power, but also gave the world some insight as to shifting regional power dynamics.

Prefer to read the transcript? Click here

Here at Zeihan on Geopolitics, our chosen charity partner is MedShare. They provide emergency medical services to communities in need, with a very heavy emphasis on locations facing acute crises. Medshare operates right in the thick of it, so we can be sure that every cent of our donation is not simply going directly to where help is needed most, but our donations serve as a force multiplier for a system already in existence.

For those who would like to donate directly to MedShare or to learn more about their efforts, you can click this link.

Learn about medshare here

Transcript

Hey, everybody. Peter Zeihan here. Coming to you from Austin, Texas. It is the 27th of October, and we’re going to do a follow-on to yesterday’s video about the Israeli retaliatory strike on Iran. Now that we know a little bit more about what was hit, the Israelis were able to target military facilities. They didn’t go after the nuclear program and they did not go after oil facilities.

Instead, their primary targets were facilities that stored missiles and were a critical component in the construction of the missiles that the Iranians like to use. Basically, there’s two types of fuel that you can put in a ballistic missile. The first is liquid fuel. This is cheaper and technically easier, but it’s very dangerous because you can’t store the rocket fuel in the rocket.

If you’re not going to launch in the next couple of days, you generally leave them empty. So, it’s easy to know when the bad guys are going to launch a bunch of missiles because satellite images can show the trucks pumping in the somewhat toxic, very explosive, very dangerous fuel.

Now, the Iranians have moved on from liquid fuel to solid fuel, which is much more stable. You can store the fuel in the rocket indefinitely, but it’s more technically involved, and the Iranians don’t know how to do it themselves. They bought the facilities to make this fuel from China, and now those are mostly smoking holes in the ground after the Israeli raid.

Until these facilities are rebuilt, and given Iran is now under much stricter sanctions than when it acquired these originally, the Iranians will have a hard time running their missile fleets as they have been, which is clearly what the Israelis were aiming for. They may have one or two operational fuel fabrication facilities left, but certainly not at a scale that poses a real threat to Israel.

So, you know, strike one, Iran. The second point to keep in mind is that wherever Israeli fighter bombers went—whether over Iraq, Lebanon, or Iran itself—they took out all the air defenses along the way. Most of the air defenses the Iranians use are called S-300s, which are the second from top-of-the-line system that the Russians produce and export.

The top model is the S-400. The Iranians knew this strike was coming, had plenty of notice, and still couldn’t shoot down a single Israeli jet. Between this raid and the war in Ukraine, where many of these S-300s are in use, we’ve been getting a bit of an awakening for people who have relied on Russian equipment all these years—it simply couldn’t do the job.

All of these air defenses are now smoking holes in the ground. On a larger stage, this has made the Israelis quite confident that whenever they feel the need to establish air superiority, they don’t even need jets—they just need to take out the air defenses since no one in the region has competitive air power.

Looking at the broader strategic picture, the Russians do have some S-400s, but not enough to provide full coverage, and they’ve already lost several in the Ukraine war. Yes, the S-400 is the most advanced air defense system the Russians have, but it’s not that much more advanced than the S-300. More importantly, the Chinese have their local air defenses, the HQ-9 and HQ-22, which are essentially knockoffs of the S-300 floor model, though upgraded in some ways with Chinese technology. We’ve never seen them in actual combat, but now we know the Israelis, who don’t even have a first-rate air force, were able to take out every S-300 they encountered. This suggests that the U.S., with its superior air force, would likely have no trouble operating in a similar environment if push came to shove with China.

Surely this isn’t what the Iranians planned when they conducted their raid on the 1st of October, but they’ve given strategic thinkers a lot to chew on, indicating that air defenses on the other side might not be nearly as interesting or capable as we’ve long assumed. So, you know, as

**Photo of an Israeli F-35I “Adir”, the model of aircraft reported to have taken part in the strikes by Wikimedia Commons.

The (Next) Gulf War Is Coming

Photo of a destroyed building in the middle east

If you’ve read my book The Absent Superpower, then today’s video shouldn’t come as a surprise to you (yes, I wrote it nearly ten years ago!). If you’ve been stuck under a rock and haven’t gotten the chance to read it -OR- you want a refresher, you can purchase a copy below.

Buy the absent superpower

You can even purchase an autographed copy as well here

Given the recent conflict in the Middle East, I’m worried that an oil crisis could be brewing. The main players that might kick off the (next) Gulf War are Iran, Israel and Saudi Arabia.

Israel was recently attacked by Iran and their retaliation could be devastating for Iran. Should they choose to target critical Iranian oil infrastructure – most of which is conveniently located near Kharg Island – Iran’s exports would plummet. Should that happen, an Iranian attack on Saudi oil fields wouldn’t be out of the question, and then we could be talking about 20 million barrels per day being under threat.

That means a global oil price of $300 per barrel is in the cards…but not for everyone. The US has the domestic supply to maintain a price closer to $60 per barrel (outside of California, because they still rely heavily on Persian Gulf imports). China would get the snot knocked out of ’em if it does play out like this. The UAE and Saudi Arabia would keep some exports alive thanks to pipelines that bypass the Strait.

Before you go buy a few drums of oil to throw in the basement, let’s wait for Israel to decide what their retaliation plan looks like.

Prefer to read the transcript? Click here

Here at Zeihan on Geopolitics, our chosen charity partner is MedShare. They provide emergency medical services to communities in need, with a very heavy emphasis on locations facing acute crises. Medshare operates right in the thick of it, so we can be sure that every cent of our donation is not simply going directly to where help is needed most, but our donations serve as a force multiplier for a system already in existence.

If you sign up for our Patreon page in the month of October, the proceeds from your subscription for the remainder of 2024 will be donated directly to MedShare. So, you can get our all of the perks of joining the Patreon AND support a good cause while you’re doing it.

We encourage you to sign up for the Patreon page at the link below.

Sign up and we'll donate to medshare
Learn about medshare here

Transcript

Hey, everybody. Peter Zeihan here, coming to you from the gloomy California coast. Got a nice little inversion layer going on out there. Anyway, today we’re going to talk about something that I haven’t really talked about in my professional career because I never thought it was going to happen until we had a change in circumstance. Well, we’ve had a change in circumstance, and now it’s time to talk about it.

And that is the possibility of a severe oil crisis because of a conflict in the Middle East. Now, back at my old job at Stratfor, they were always beating this drum. The idea that Iran was about to close the Strait of Hormuz and oil prices go to $500 and blah, blah, blah. And I was always the dissident voice because unless and until Iran feels it has no other choice, that doesn’t work because all of Iran’s crude goes out through the Strait of Hormuz.

Now, when I left, I went on my own. My second book, written about ten years—ten years ago, how did that happen?—mentions the three wars of the globalization period, conflicts that will boil up because the U.S. has stepped back, and whether the countries feel they have an opportunity or because they’re desperate, they take matters into their own hands.

Now, one of these I called the Twilight War, which is now in the opening act with the Ukraine conflict as the Russians try to reshape their neighborhood. But the second one, I called the Next Gulf War. And it’s about a conflict in which Iran and Saudi Arabia fight each other at each other’s throats because they can’t reliably get energy out.

So they try to take out each other. In that scenario, you basically have potentially 10 to 12 million barrels of crude that is at risk. Now, I haven’t brought this conflict up very much since I wrote the book because the circumstances haven’t warranted it. Especially in the last three years, it’s all been about Ukraine and Russia in their Twilight War.

But in recent days, I am reassessing. And specifically, the concern is after Iran launched a couple hundred missiles at Israel a couple weeks back, the Israelis have made it very clear that they intend to retaliate in the time and place of their own choosing. And they’ve specifically shortlisted Iran’s oil sector as potential targets. There is a very obvious target point.

It’s called Kharg Island. There is subsea infrastructure that links via pipe the mainland to the island. And then all, all, all of Iran’s offshore loading platforms are just off the island. This is the only meaningful export point for Iranian crude. And as the Israelis have proven, back in April when we had the previous Iranian assault on Israel, they can take out any air defense system in the country.

If you remember back then in Isfahan, which is where the Iranians have the nuclear program headquartered, the Israelis took out the air defense around the nuclear program specifically to prove that they could if they wanted to. So any sort of air defense and Kharg is almost a rounding error in the Israeli calculus. And there’s no bridge here. It was not built by the Iranians.

It was built by Westerners in the days before the Shah fell. So if Israel decides to move, it’ll just take a couple of sorties. They’ll be done in an hour. And Iran’s entire oil export capacity would be devastated. And in that scenario, suddenly Iran doesn’t have much to lose and, out of desperation, would probably make a push to take out Saudi Arabia.

The scenario specifically outlined in the book involves a military invasion that crosses into Iraq and Kuwait, heads south, making a beeline for the oil fields. Keep in mind that the southern half of Iraq is Shia-populated and has generally had a very pro-Iranian slant ever since the war against Saddam Hussein back in the 2000s. Whether or not it would be an easy invasion is open for debate based on how or whether other countries, such as the United States, get involved.

But even if that is not an option, all of those missiles that the Iranians launched recently against Israel, they have more than enough to take out oil export and processing facilities on the western side of the Persian Gulf, notably Saudi Arabia. Most of Saudi Arabia’s crude comes from the Ghawar region, which is hard up against the coast, and all of the loading platforms are also on the Gulf Coast.

Well, most of them. So you’re talking between the two of them, a significant reduction in what is globally available. If it was just Iran, not a big deal. You’re talking about a million barrels a day. They’ve been under sanction for a while. They’ve mismanaged their own system. But if you bring in Gulf states, most notably Saudi Arabia, all of a sudden that 1 million turns to 10 million or more, and that doesn’t count what comes out of, say, Iraq or the UAE or Kuwait, all of which would be in the way of a potential conflict.

So now you’re talking potentially 20 million barrels a day. You want oil prices above $300? That’s how you get there. Now, not everything is equal for all players. Yes, currently we have a single global oil price. But in that scenario, that system would shatter because in the United States we have a populist president, and the people running for president are populist.

And back in 2015, U.S. Congress granted the American presidency the authority to summarily end all American crude oil exports, which have been several million barrels a day for a while now. The shale revolution really is rocking and rolling. And so if we have oil prices shoot up, you would have the president, whoever it happened to be, end exports. That would create a super-saturated market within the United States while denying the rest of the world another few million barrels per day, sending prices up even higher.

So you’d have a functional ceiling in the United States of $60 to $70 a barrel, and you’d have a functional floor in the rest of the world, probably around $200 to $300 a barrel. So you get a global depression. At the same time, the United States just kind of skates right on. Second, the country that would suffer the most by far would be China.

It is the largest consumer of crude from Saudi Arabia, from the UAE, from Kuwait, from Iran. And all of those sources would be in danger in some way, if not going completely. Third, on the producer side, not everyone in the Persian Gulf would suffer equally because the Saudis and the Emiratis have seen some version of this problem coming.

And so both of them have built bypass pipelines that avoid the Strait of Hormuz completely. So roughly 5 million barrels a day, maybe as much as six and a half, could still get out. That’s enough to take a lot of the sting out from a budgetary point of view. And if you’re Saudi Arabia and oil prices triple but your exports halve, you’re actually in a net financial superior position.

Assuming the Iranians don’t conquer you. And then finally, in the United States, there is one state that would be in a different situation, and that would be here in California. California doesn’t have any pipes that connect it to the oil fields of Ohio or North Dakota or Texas. And it is the one oil producer in the country that has not benefited from the shale revolution because of regulation out of Sacramento, which means that in this scenario, they’d be kind of hosed because they actually import most of their crude from the same place the Chinese do—the Persian Gulf.

So in the rest of the country, you’ve got a ceiling on energy prices. But out here on the West Coast, you’re looking at $10 a gallon for gasoline, triggering a significant schism in the economic outcomes, even within one country. So this has gone from something that was just kind of out there in the future, if and when de-globalization really gets going, to all of a sudden it’s a meteor.

And now the chances it’s going to happen? Well, I mean, really that’s up to Israel. And then, of course, the Iranian reaction. But I would say it’s somewhere between 1 in 4 and 1 in 3 to happen over the course of the next few months. And considering the depth of this disruption, I hope everyone sleeps well.

The Downward Spiral of the Chinese Economy

A man holding a Chinese Yuan in the middle of Tinannamen Square

You’re receiving this video a week after its initial posting on Patreon. If you’d like to get access to this content as soon as it’s released, along with a number of other exclusive perks, click the link below.

Join my patreon

If you ever need to make an online dating profile, be sure to add “long walks on the beach discussing the economic challenges facing China” to the list…I promise you’ll double the dates in no time.

The Chinese have been struggling with economic growth since the beginning of COVID, missing their growth rate target repeatedly and on the verge of a recession. Attempts to bail themselves out continue to fall short, likely because these stimulus measures do not address the core problems (that the population is aging and private consumption is plummeting).

That’s not even an exhaustive list either. The Chinese banking system is severely strained as well. With the government pushing for more lending at low/negative rates, the banking sector is in dire straits. Until major reform hits China, the spiral down will continue…and a larger financial crisis will continue to creep closer and closer.

Prefer to read the transcript? Click here

Here at Zeihan On Geopolitics we select a single charity to sponsor. We have two criteria:

First, we look across the world and use our skill sets to identify where the needs are most acute. Second, we look for an institution with preexisting networks for both materials gathering and aid distribution. That way we know every cent of our donation is not simply going directly to where help is needed most, but our donations serve as a force multiplier for a system already in existence. Then we give what we can.

Today, our chosen charity is a group called Medshare, which provides emergency medical services to communities in need, with a very heavy emphasis on locations facing acute crises. Medshare operates right in the thick of it. Until future notice, every cent we earn from every book we sell in every format through every retailer is going to Medshare’s Ukraine fund.

And then there’s you.

Our newsletters and videologues are free and we will never share your contact information with anyone. All we ask is that if you find one of our releases in any way useful, that you make a donation to Medshare. Over one third of Ukraine’s pre-war population has either been forced from their homes, kidnapped and shipped to Russia, or is trying to survive in occupied lands. This is our way to help who we can. Please, join us.

Support medshare's ukraine fund
Support medshare's global efforts

Transcript

Hey everybody, Peter Zeihan here, coming to you from the South Carolina coast. And today, we’re going to talk about the normal things I talk about when I’m walking on the beach, and that’s Chinese finance. Okayyy? Let’s get that out with a straight face. Okay. For those of you who have been watching the Chinese markets and the economic recovery—or lack thereof—over the last year, you’ll notice it’s been kind of a rough year for them.

By their own statistics, they’re not going to hit their 5% GDP growth target for the year. And if you talk to private folks who have a more realistic understanding of what’s going on, the China that is what’s left of the Chinese bureaucratic system has basically gutted its own statistics to the point where they’re becoming literally useless. We are talking about a borderline recession.

We’re not in China, and this isn’t new. The Chinese economy stumbled in the fourth quarter of 2019 with the onset of Covid. And aside from a couple of blips here and there, it’s kind of been down in the dumps ever since. It wouldn’t surprise me if we had an actual forensic audit done on Chinese books and found that the Chinese economy writ large over that entire period was actually roughly the same size it was before.

The data isn’t out of malfeasance. It’s just the system is outdated. It’s a flag, so you don’t get accurate data at the local level, much less at the national level.

Anyway, in the last couple of weeks, we’ve seen a huge number of measures—not huge stimulus, two different things. They’ve tweaked the mortgage rate a little bit and reduced something called the reserve requirement, which is the percentage of bank deposits that have to be held back at the bank in order to make loans.

All of these things are mildly stimulatory, but they don’t get to the core issue that China now faces: it has so few people under 50 that there just isn’t much of a consumption base to be boosted. And that’s before you consider that the government of Chairman Xi Jinping really doesn’t see private consumption as a meaningful driver of economic growth.

From an ideological point of view, the idea that people would spend on themselves as opposed to spending on the state is something that seems to be a little alien to him based on his rhetoric and speeches. Anyhow, that also kind of ignores the point. We’ve talked a lot about consumption, investment, and trade.

But something we don’t talk about very often are Chinese banks, which are the method by which capital makes its way into the Chinese economy—like in most economies. And that is also completely broken. The Chinese method of encouraging economic activity is to lean on the banks so they lend to everyone for everything, often at zero to negative rates once you adjust for inflation. And when you put a bottomless supply of capital in front of anyone, they will gorge on it, and you will get economic growth.

But whether that growth is stable or sustainable is, of course, questionable. Basically, for those of you in the United States, I’ve just described subprime, Enron, or the savings and loan crisis. It’s all fine until someone actually has to start valuing the loans that are on the books. And when you flood the market with credit, a lot of these loans just don’t work out.

In the U.S., we call these “non-performing loans” (NPLs). If 1.5% by value of a bank’s loans go into that NPL category, then a government regulator will knock on your door and force you to change your policies to bring that number down. Once you get over 2%, that’s when banks start snapping like matchsticks because there isn’t enough margin on those loans to grow out of them.

Well, in China, the margin is sometimes zero or even negative. And because the concept of fiduciary responsibility doesn’t exactly translate well into Mandarin, many of these loans that should have never been made have gone bad. By most internal estimates, China’s total NPL ratio for the entire banking sector is somewhere between 5.5% and 6%, which would basically mean their entire banking sector is, well, out of luck.

This doesn’t mean every bank is there, but for every bank that is below that number, there’s at least one or two above it. As a rule, the least stable banks are the ones that aren’t on the coast. Investment inflows, export activity, and foreign money mean coastal banks tend to run tighter ships.

But as you move inland, especially to poorer, more agricultural areas, it’s all about Chinese state banks, whether they’re the big four national banks or smaller regional ones. So, if you want to talk about the future of Chinese economic growth, it’s not going to be boosted by changing the reserve requirement.

It’s going to be improved by getting the banks into a position where they can actually function a bit more normally. But that can’t happen until they deal with the NPLs. In the U.S., every time we’ve dealt with NPLs, it’s only been because we had a recession linked to the financial sector, like the subprime crisis of 2007–2009 or the savings and loan crisis in the 1980s. China will need to go through something similar.

But you’re talking about something at least an order of magnitude worse. And in relative terms, because the U.S. economy is much stronger than China’s, you’re talking about something even worse than that. So, it’s nice that the Chinese stock market is having a little bit of a pop, but none of the underlying issues have been addressed. Trying to make credit easier when credit is already overextended will simply make the inevitable crash that much harder.

How Effective Are the Israeli Defense Systems?

Photo of Iron Dome missile defense system firing

You’re receiving this video a week after its initial posting on Patreon. If you’d like to get access to this content as soon as it’s released, along with a number of other exclusive perks, click the link below.

Join my patreon

Israeli defense systems are getting put through the ringer as of late, so let’s talk through each of these systems, how they’re doing, and what the US involvement looks like.

The Iron Dome is what we hear about most often; this is what intercepted the rockets from Hezbollah. This system is designed to counter unsophisticated rockets, and thanks to Israel’s small size, it does this quite well.

When the bigger stuff starts to fly, like ballistic missiles, that’s when the Arrow system comes into play. While its been successful against the recent attacks from Iran, the US was helping out on the tracking/targeting side of things, so we don’t have a true measure for how good this system is on its own.

That helping hand from the US is key, not only because its helping the Israelis defend themselves, but the US is also getting some valuable, real-world testing for tech that can be used back at home. So, its a bit of a win-win here.

Prefer to read the transcript? Click here

Here at Zeihan On Geopolitics we select a single charity to sponsor. We have two criteria:

First, we look across the world and use our skill sets to identify where the needs are most acute. Second, we look for an institution with preexisting networks for both materials gathering and aid distribution. That way we know every cent of our donation is not simply going directly to where help is needed most, but our donations serve as a force multiplier for a system already in existence. Then we give what we can.

Today, our chosen charity is a group called Medshare, which provides emergency medical services to communities in need, with a very heavy emphasis on locations facing acute crises. Medshare operates right in the thick of it. Until future notice, every cent we earn from every book we sell in every format through every retailer is going to Medshare’s Ukraine fund.

And then there’s you.

Our newsletters and videologues are free and we will never share your contact information with anyone. All we ask is that if you find one of our releases in any way useful, that you make a donation to Medshare. Over one third of Ukraine’s pre-war population has either been forced from their homes, kidnapped and shipped to Russia, or is trying to survive in occupied lands. This is our way to help who we can. Please, join us.

Support medshare's ukraine fund
Support medshare's global efforts

Transcript

Hey, everybody. Peter Zeihan here, coming to you from the South Carolina coast. And we’re going to talk about technology that’s been in the news a little bit, and that’s missile defense, specifically the Israeli system that has proven to be remarkably successful in recent years, both at shooting down Hezbollah rockets coming in from Lebanon and, more recently, ballistic missiles coming in from Iran.

A couple of things to keep in mind—three things to keep in mind. Number one, there is more than one system here. The first system is called Iron Dome, and that is the anti-rocket system deployed in northern Israel that’s been intercepting the rockets coming in from Lebanon. Now, it’s not that this isn’t an impressive system in its own way, but the rockets being fired by Hezbollah are oftentimes garage projects.

And as such, you’re not talking about something that is particularly sophisticated or moving particularly quickly. Basically, what happens is the Israelis launch a lot of interceptors when a barrage is coming in, and they kind of loiter until they can lock onto a rocket, and then they zip down and hit it. But even if they miss, a lot of times these things have a very high dud rate.

Over a third of them probably don’t even explode when they do hit, and they have next to no guidance. In fact, most have had no guidance at all. So it’s good for what it is, but let’s not overplay it. Also, keep in mind that Israel is the size of New Jersey, and the northern border with Lebanon is very, very short.

So, from a technical point of view, it’s relatively easy to guard that sort of territory. The second system, second thing to know, is the ballistic defense system called the Arrow system. And it is significantly more sophisticated than what’s going on with Iron Dome. This was pulled into play to defend Israel against the ballistic attacks that came in from Iran last week.

Now, the problem here is in assessing how successful it is. We really don’t know, not because it hasn’t shot missiles down, but because it hasn’t done so alone. In the recent attacks from Iran, the United States has been there, present, shooting things down too, and linking the radars together. And we just don’t know how well the Israelis could do if it weren’t for American involvement in the defense.

It probably still is among the best in the world, but everything that has been thrown at it has already had to deal with the United States. Everything has basically been designed before the year 2000. You’re talking about missiles that are at least 20 years old, off of designs that are at least 30 years old. Calling it cutting-edge is probably the wrong phrase.

Again, this is a country the size of New Jersey. You don’t need a lot of arc of coverage in order to shield the whole thing. And even with those factors in play, a lot of the missiles still made it through. They didn’t cause any substantial damage, but that is a fault of the missiles, and maybe, perhaps deliberate targeting, avoiding civilian areas more than anything else.

And then the third and final thing to keep in mind is that, for the United States, this is a perfect layout. U.S. assistance with both of these defense systems, with the intent of then taking them, modifying them for our uses—whether in terms of deployment, theaters, or the homeland—and then scaling them up. And so, believe it or not, all of the ongoing agony and violence of the Middle East, in many ways, is providing the perfect testbed for missile defense for U.S. defense systems.

Okay, I’ve got to hit the beach today, but anyway, until that, bye.

Impacts of an Israeli Strike on Iran’s Oil Sector

Photo of black oil barells

You’re receiving this video a week after its initial posting on Patreon. If you’d like to get access to this content as soon as it’s released, along with a number of other exclusive perks, click the link below.

Join my patreon

Following my video on Iran’s attacks from the other day, I feel it necessary to explore the possibility of an Israeli strike on Iran’s oil sector and the affect it would have on global markets.

Iran’s oil exports hover around 1 million barrels per day. Thanks to sanctions, mismanagement, and maturing fields, production has taken a hit over the years. Regardless, that’s a million barrels per day that could vanish from the markets, which means a $10-15 increase per barrel on top of the “war premium”. Not a global catastrophe, but it will still hurt.

The US is fairly insulated from shocks to the global oil markets (like this one), so I’m not worried about the US. Should this get really bad, the US president can authorize a suspension of crude exports which would create a glut of oil in North America…similar to what we’ve seen with natural gas prices.

Prefer to read the transcript? Click here

Here at Zeihan On Geopolitics we select a single charity to sponsor. We have two criteria:

First, we look across the world and use our skill sets to identify where the needs are most acute. Second, we look for an institution with preexisting networks for both materials gathering and aid distribution. That way we know every cent of our donation is not simply going directly to where help is needed most, but our donations serve as a force multiplier for a system already in existence. Then we give what we can.

Today, our chosen charity is a group called Medshare, which provides emergency medical services to communities in need, with a very heavy emphasis on locations facing acute crises. Medshare operates right in the thick of it. Until future notice, every cent we earn from every book we sell in every format through every retailer is going to Medshare’s Ukraine fund.

And then there’s you.

Our newsletters and videologues are free and we will never share your contact information with anyone. All we ask is that if you find one of our releases in any way useful, that you make a donation to Medshare. Over one third of Ukraine’s pre-war population has either been forced from their homes, kidnapped and shipped to Russia, or is trying to survive in occupied lands. This is our way to help who we can. Please, join us.

Support medshare's ukraine fund
Support medshare's global efforts

Transcript

Hey everybody, Peter Zeihan here, coming to you from the beautiful chaos that is Dallas Love Airport, headquarters of Southwest Airlines. In the aftermath of a video I recently did on the Israelis and their potential strike on Iran — specifically targeting the oil sector — I thought it would be worth noting how that could affect a few things, most notably here in the United States.

So, Iran’s oil production has been suffering for years. Part of it is due to sanctions, but mostly it’s because their regulatory regime is really punishing for would-be foreign investors. They basically require that the state take a leading role in everything, and the state company is not very good. Most of the oil fields in Khuzestan are mature and require a lot of technology that the Iranians don’t have and don’t understand in order to make them produce meaningfully.

Everything else worth having is offshore, but the Iranians have absolutely no ability to operate offshore by themselves. So while the numbers that officially hit the market ebb and flow because of the sanctions regime — and whether or not the Iranians are attempting to sneak around sanctions — the actual flow is about a million barrels per day of exports. Sometimes it’s as low as 400,000, sometimes it feels a little bit higher, but about a million. Now, if you remove a million barrels a day from the market, we’re going to feel it. But that’s only 1%, so you would expect, in a purely market-driven environment, for that to kick up prices by ten, maybe fifteen dollars a barrel. Of course, since it would be due to someone dropping a bomb on something, there would be a war premium on top of that.

The impact globally is going to be felt, it’s going to be real, but it’s not going to be huge. As for the United States, I’m really not concerned. The U.S. is no longer an energy importer. We’ve come a long way since 2007, when we were importing something like 14–15 million barrels a day, thanks to the shale revolution.

The United States is now arguably one of the lowest-cost producers in the world, and our production is well over 20 million barrels a day. Moreover, the U.S. has diversified its economic strength and is now absorbing far fewer barrels. Now, if you look at the headline numbers, you’re not going to see that, but that’s because the U.S. Energy Department calculates things differently from everyone else.

We look at the amount of crude we actually consume in total, including what goes into our refineries for products that are then exported. That’s not how most countries do it. The argument here is that nobody consumes raw crude; it has to be turned into something. So, it’s not a stupid way to look at the data, but it does make it seem like we are more dependent on international trade than we actually are.

In fact, if you consider all the types of crude that the U.S. produces — raw crude, natural gas liquids, condensates — we now have such a huge surplus that by the end of this year, the U.S. will be exporting 5 million barrels a day of roughly defined product. In the history of the petroleum era, there are only three countries that have ever produced more than 5 million barrels per day of raw crude, and we’re exporting that much in refined product.

So, the degree to which the United States is insulated from this is robust. Now, do keep in mind that oil is an internationally traded product, and so there is more or less a single global oil price point because it is an easily exchanged commodity. But if we ever get to the point that there is an oil shock — I don’t think that will happen with Iran — but if we do, and prices get to a point that the American president finds untenable, the U.S. president, courtesy of powers granted back in 2015, has the authority to summarily suspend all exports of raw crude. And we do a lot of that too. If that happens, the crude gets trapped within North America.

We get a supersaturated energy market, and then North American energy prices separate from global energy prices in a manner very similar to what has already happened with natural gas prices. U.S. natural gas prices, because of a similar glut in natural gas, are as a rule one-fourth to one-eighth what they are in Europe or Asia. So if we ever do get into a situation where crude prices get sketchy, you can count on the American president — whoever it happens to be — to enact that power.

Then, all of a sudden, we’ve got energy prices here that rarely go above $60, because every shale oil field we have is cost-competitive at that price, while everyone else screams past $100 on their way to $200 and more.

Okay, that’s it for me. Of course, the biggest downside of being here is that, because Southwest is a hub and it’s open seating, you have to check in 24 hours online in order to get a decent seat. And because I was launching this new thing called Patreon 24 hours ago, I forgot. So I am C-51. I will be the sad person up against the bathroom, trying to squeeze this lengthy, 6-foot-5 frame into a middle seat that does not recline. Pray for me.

Iran’s President-Elect Sparks Change, But How Much?

Next up on our list of important elections around the globe is the Iranian presidential elections. We’ll be looking at Iran’s new President-elect, Masoud Pezeshkian, and what his victory might mean for the country.

Pezeshkian triumphed over a number of slightly nutty, ultra-conservative, fire-breathing candidates sponsored by the clerical regime (which officially oversees the entire country). This presidential election has also highlighted some of the ongoing issues Iran has faced, especially the economic difficulties caused by US sanctions.

Pezeshkian’s platform follows a more moderate approach than his opponents and predecessors, and suggests a possible shift in domestic policies. As of now, these conversations are focused on smaller issues like the strict enforcement of a dress code for women, but when the majority of the Iranian populace rallies behind something like that…it could mean that something bigger is brewing. It’s far too early to make a call like that, but this is something that I’ll be keeping an eye on.

Prefer to read the transcript? Click here

Here at Zeihan On Geopolitics we select a single charity to sponsor. We have two criteria:

First, we look across the world and use our skill sets to identify where the needs are most acute. Second, we look for an institution with preexisting networks for both materials gathering and aid distribution. That way we know every cent of our donation is not simply going directly to where help is needed most, but our donations serve as a force multiplier for a system already in existence. Then we give what we can.

Today, our chosen charity is a group called Medshare, which provides emergency medical services to communities in need, with a very heavy emphasis on locations facing acute crises. Medshare operates right in the thick of it. Until future notice, every cent we earn from every book we sell in every format through every retailer is going to Medshare’s Ukraine fund.

And then there’s you.

Our newsletters and videologues are not only free, they will always be free. We also will never share your contact information with anyone. All we ask is that if you find one of our releases in any way useful, that you make a donation to Medshare. Over one third of Ukraine’s pre-war population has either been forced from their homes, kidnapped and shipped to Russia, or is trying to survive in occupied lands. This is our way to help who we can. Please, join us.

Support medshare's ukraine fund
Support medshare's global efforts

Transcript

Hey, everybody. Peter Zeihan here, coming to you from a rental car in Kansas City. Today, we are going to take a crack at the second piece in our elections series for the week. We had a number of important elections recently. Today, we’re going to cover Iran, where there was a runaway victory for the now president-elect Masoud Pezeshkian. And I apologize for the name. Anyway, he came in with a strong first place. There’s a two-round voting system in Iran, and it’s not really a surprise that he won.

There were any number of candidates in the first round, but five of them were sponsored by the clerical regime of Iran. You know, the slightly nutty, very ultra-conservative, hate-everyone group that runs the country.

Anyway, there were five candidates from that faction, and they were all fire-breathers. So having one moderate ensured that he made it to the second round, where he easily defeated his opponent, who was honestly a complete nutbag. So no surprise there.

But moving away from the tactical political stuff, the situation Iran is in is uncomfortable.

Dial back a little bit. If you remember back to the war in Iraq, the United States was very good at overthrowing the Saddam regime but not very good at making Iraq look like Wisconsin. So Iranian agents were able to step into the void and agitate the Shia population of Iraq. Shia is a denomination within Islam, and the Iranians are predominantly Shia. It’s also the single largest denomination in Iraq.

Saddam’s government was Sunni. So when the United States basically ripped out the apparatus of the old government and wasn’t quick enough in putting something else in its place, Iran was able to partially take over and still remains very influential there today.

During this period, while the United States was going after militants throughout the region, the Shia Iranians were able to step in, displace a lot of groups, cause a lot of trouble, and become very powerful throughout the region. But it wasn’t free. Iran has a financial restriction in that most of its income comes from oil.

So if you can target the oil, you can target Iran. Over the long term—not just days, weeks, or months, but decades—that really cripples them. Over the past 20 years, yes, Iran made a lot of forays, but it generated a lot of expenses.

When Saudi Arabia was roused to combat Iran, Iran was never going to win a game of checkbook diplomacy with a country that exports a fifth as much oil. Then under Obama, the United States put some of the strictest sanctions ever developed against Iran to pressure them into a nuclear deal to curb their nuclear ambitions. Under Donald Trump, who did away with the deal but kept the sanctions in place, these sanctions have now been in place for the better part of the last decade. We are seeing very real impacts on the standard of living in Iran because they haven’t been able to export the volume of oil necessary to sustain a meaningful standard of living within Iran, much less cause trouble throughout the region.

I don’t mean to suggest that Iran’s been curtailed or castrated, but they’re having a hard time doing everything they thought they would be able to do. When you have this sort of economic blindness, you can follow one of two paths. A few years ago, they tried electing a hardliner named Raisi, who everybody hated. He was a mean dude, and even within the clerical establishment, people thought he was too tough. Then he died in a plane crash a few weeks ago.

The new guy, Masoud Pezeshkian, is basically trying the other approach—maybe a little bit of compromise, maybe a more constructive relationship with the West. Now, I don’t want anyone to get too overexcited here. Yes, elections matter in Iran, but only within a certain framework. The most powerful person in Iran is not the president; it is the supreme leader, who remains a bag of snakes and is responsible for all the things you think of when you think of Iran: the clerical theocracy, the oppression of minorities and women, and the general seeding of militant groups throughout the Middle East. None of that has changed.

The new guy is not challenging much of that at all. In foreign policy, he has stated that he still supports Iran having a nuclear program and a hard line in negotiations with the West. He still supports the Houthis in their on-again, off-again conflict with Israel and Hamas against Israel. He still supports militancy throughout the region, but he’s doing it with a much different tone that suggests there might be a little room for compromise here or there. Don’t count your chickens before they hatch, but there’s at least a change in mood.

If there is going to be a meaningful difference, it will happen at home. Pezeshkian has been very clear that he thinks the clerical authorities’ law enforcement arm shouldn’t beat women if they show their hair. From a geopolitical point of view, that’s kind of a nothing burger under normal circumstances. But now you have the majority of the population of Iran siding with the president against the people with the guns. That can go in a lot of interesting directions. Keep in mind that you’ve got 10,000 clerics, 10,000 mullahs, that basically rule Iran. It’s a deep bench. I’m not suggesting we’re going to have a revolution, but if the guy who’s nominally at the top, chosen by the people, wants a different approach to living your life in the country, and the people who have been calling the shots up to this point are on the opposite side of that, well, things can get very interesting.

So I don’t want to overplay this. I’m not suggesting a revolution, but for the first time in 40 years, there seems to be a split within the leadership of Iran on what Iran should be at home. And that’s how change starts.

Okay, that’s it for Iran. Tomorrow we’ll deal with France.