How to Break Iran

A ripped grungy back wall of the Iranian flag

If the U.S. wants to force a meaningful change in Iran’s government, there’s only one path forward. They have to destabilize the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).

The IRGC has become the center of power in Iran. While leadership is divided into three groups, the IRGC is the military-economic network that controls industry and enforces domestic control. Given Iran’s fragmentation and ethnic diversity, internal stability is essential. Should the IRGC’s revenue streams fall in the war, internal fractures would form.

If the younger members begin seeking power over the older elites who control the wealth, a civil conflict would erupt. Of course, it would be extremely destabilizing not only for Iran but also for the region.

Prefer to read the transcript? Click here

Transcript

Hey, all. Peter Zeihan here coming to you from Colorado. Sorry. Fever broke last night, so I’m better, but I’m still kind of weak. Where was I? Most of our coverage of the Iran war at this point is about what’s been blowing up the energy side of things. Strait of Hormuz, all that good stuff. Today, I wanted to go a different direction and talk about what might, might, might change in Iran that would end the war the way the United States would be really excited about, what I’m going to say isn’t necessarily how it’s going to go, but if we are going to break the Iranian government, it’ll look like this. 

So the Iranian government basically has three big chunks that matter. First, you’ve got your supreme leader and surrounding the supreme leader are all of the people who are in charge of the guns and the overall strategy. So the intelligence minister, the defense minister, the people who are in charge of the IRGC, that is the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, which is a militia that controls most of the day to day operations and, the country and among these groups controls all of their overseas assets and their influences throughout the Middle East, whether that is militants in Syria, Hezbollah, Shia in Iraq or what have you. A lot of these people, at least at the top, have now been killed. The Supreme leader’s gone. The new Supreme leader was selected, but his parents is one of his kids, and his wife has been killed. 

The defense minister has been killed. And on and on and on. It’s not that this group is not functional, but it means that they’ve handed power down to the IRGC. More on them in a minute. The second group are the political and economic leadership that run the day to day operations of the country. The president, for example, the economics minister, the energy minister. 

For the most part, these people have not been targeted by the Americans and the Israelis because they’re not responsible for most of the policies that the Americans and the Israelis find problematic. So when you see Iran going up and mucking up the region, these aren’t the people responsible. These are the people, for the most part, stay at home. 

And they’ve been mostly left alone. But then you’ve got the IRGC, and that’s very different. A couple things to keep in mind. Number one, Iran is not a normal country. It’s all mountainous. And in each mountain valley you have a different ethnicity. And so how the Persians came to control this territory is they expanded out of their original mountain home in Persepolis and then went to the next valley over and conquered and intermingled with those people, and then to a third and a fourth and a fifth, and eventually did that a thousand times. 

So when people talk about the thousand nations of Persia, they’re not exaggerating. This is a multi-ethnic society that has been trying to slowly grind its minorities into amalgamation for several thousand years, and today they’re only about half completed. Only 51% of Iranians identify as Persians. Now all the others still identify as Iranian. I’m not suggesting that there’s like a really robust opportunity here for multiple fifth columns, but it does shape the decision making, and it’s pretty clear that it’s the Persians who are in control of all the major decisions, especially the IRGC, the IRGC, plus the military. 

Its primary job is to make sure that 49% of the population who are not Persian never get persnickety and rise up. So in many cases, the Iranian military force is primarily designed to occupy its own country. 

All right. That’s the background you need for us to get into the real stuff. Now let’s talk about what can happen. The clerical class that is part of those first two categories, the supreme leader chunk and the more technocratic chunk. 

That’s 10,000 people. And so if you wanted to destroy the political system of a country, that’s a lot of folks that you have to drop bombs on. And undoubtedly we’ve managed to do so for, for at least a couple hundred that were at the top. But there are always going to be more people waiting in the wings to step up and get into the big chair, even during a war. 

So grinding through that entire class, which was basically would be a religious war, going after all the priests, is something that just really isn’t viable unless you’re going to put 1 million or 2 million troops on the ground in Iran to go through a country that’s twice the size of Texas with three times the population and root out each individual one, not really viable. 

And then there’s the IRGC links to the clerical class, but more generally not of the clerical class. These are people about a quarter of a million to a half a million strong, based on whose numbers you’re using, who are also responsible for domestic pacification. 

So whenever there is an uprising the IRGC comes in and starts shooting people. They also have very good relations with, say, the Syrians and especially the Russians. And so the Russians provide them with technology to track down people who are using cell phones or Starlink and basically get them in their homes and then remove them from the equation. Not nice people, but where there might might be a weakness in the IRGC model, it’s not in the guns. 

Then the money. IRGC is self-funding. They control broad swaths of the Iranian economy from energy projects that they have forced private sector players out to the electricity system, which they control half of, to any sort of smuggled good. And since Iran is one of the most sanctioned countries in history, pretty much anything that is imported is smuggled at some level. 

And that means that they have a vast array of income streams that add up to the tens of billions of dollars every year, and that money train is what entices people to join the IRGC. So today, we’re in a position where the senior political leadership around the supreme leader has been neutered or is at least in hiding. And the IRGC, in many ways, is the face of the regime now, because power devolve down to them, because they control a lot of military assets, including the missile program, the nuclear program, the shadow program. 

And so when they see their interests get hit, waves of shitheads come out. So if you remember last week, Israel bombed part of a facility called the South Pars natural gas field, which is where the country gets the 70% of their natural gas. That natural gas is used to make power that hit the IRGC directly. 

So they sent out 50 different attacks into various places across the entire region, and in doing so, made it very clear that they were perfectly willing to burn down all the energy infrastructure in the region if their economic interests are hurt. But if you really do want to change the government, you have to break the IRGC. Now, since there’s over a quarter of a million of them, there’s no way, even with a ground invasion, that you’re going to go in there and root them all out. 

So you have to change the economic math here. It’s a generational issue. Ever since the Shah fell back in 79, there has been a baby bust and a consolidation of power among the people who were alive before that. And so we’ve seen the leadership of Iran, as a rule, get over and over and over. 

That doesn’t mean that there aren’t young people there just fewer young people than there are old people. And how the demographic issue is playing out with the IRGC is you have a lot of people in their 20s and 30s and maybe even into their 40s that have never really tasted power, and they see their elders absorbing most of the profits from the smuggling and the energy in the electricity sector and construction and everything else. And they’re beginning to wonder with the war, when is my time? 

Well, if the IRGC economic aspects get crushed in the war, then you might be able to generate this sort of uprising from within the Corps itself with the younger folks, the Young Turks, if you will, going against the older folks at the moment. That is the only path forward that I see where the United States might actually be able to change the regime in the country, forcing basically a civil war in the IRGC itself. 

It would not be easy. And every time you go after the IRGC economic assets, you know, they’re going to hit the economic assets of the broader Gulf. But at this point, we have at least another 4 or 5 weeks of the war before the batch of Marines that are coming in from California arrive. And in that time, we’re probably going to lose most of that anyway. 

So we’re already talking about the Persian Gulf being removed from the mechanics of global economics permanently. The question is whether or not you want to also try as part of that process to remove the IRGC. It’s an ugly way to do it, but at the moment, it’s the only real weakness in the way that Iran is set up that I think might be able to be exploited.

Trump Gets Introduced to Section 301

US Supreme Court Building

The Supreme Court ruled Trump’s tariffs were illegal, forcing the administration to do things…the right way. Welcome to Section 301 investigations.

This is the slower and more legally structured process of issuing tariffs run by the Office of the United States Trade Representative. Reminder that the USTR has been gutted, so they lack the staff to juggle multiple investigations. Especially since NAFTA renegotiations are just kicking off.

Prefer to read the transcript? Click here

Transcript

Hey all. Peter Zeihan here, coming to you from Tulsa. It’s way too windy outside to record there, so we’re into it right here by the coffee machine, which is keeping me alive today. All right. Today we’re talking about the next step of Donald Trump’s trade policy. As I’m sure you guys all knew, the Supreme Court recently ruled, six three that Trump’s tariffs, which he labeled as an emergency situation, putting tariffs on literally every country in the world were a gross abuse of the law that he cited that it was illegal and unconstitutional for him to do so, that, tariffs are the province of the Congress, unless the Congress has expressly granted authority to the executive. Now, there are laws where that has happened, and that is what brings us to today. There’s something called 301 tariffs where the president can say, hey, this country is not being fair. It’s violating American trade laws and any agreements that we have. Therefore, we will investigate this violation. We will open up the situation to public comment. 

So any consumers or American businesses can testify, will put it on record. We will pull all the information together, we will make a finding, and then we will use that as ammo in negotiations with the country on the other side. And if those negotiations do not go the way that we like, we will then impose some sort of punitive system that might include tariffs. 

That’s just one of many options. It’s very adult, it’s very constitutional, follows the letter of the law. Now that he has been unable to convince the courts that what he was doing before was legal, it also takes time. There are two problems that Donald Trump is going to face with the 301 approach. The first one is that it can’t be arbitrary. 

So something that Trump did over and over and over again last year is whatever happened in the international system that annoyed him. He threw a tariff on it. You’re trading with the country. I don’t like tariff. I don’t like you personally. Tariff. You say something about the military. I don’t like tariff. You seem to really like steel tariff. 

It didn’t matter what it was. You throw a tariff on anything and that is now been proven shockingly so. To be unconstitutional. Not what Congress intended. 

The problem, however, with this new approach is that there is a process and you have to start it and there’s negotiations and there’s a comment period. And you actually have to build your case. 

Now, I have no doubt that at the end of the day, the Trump administration will just say, oh yeah, of course we’ve now proven our case and we tariff, but that takes months. Second problem, all of this, all of it, every little bit of it is handled up by the US Trade Representative Office. Now the USTR run by a guy by the name of Jamison Greer, who knows what he’s doing. 

He was trained by one of the best in the industry, Bob Lighthizer. 

The problem with USTR is it can only do so many things at a time. And under Joe Biden, who did not push a single free trade deal, it was kind of hollowed out of its staff. And then when Trump came in and Dogecoin, Elon Musk and all that, it lost some more of its stuff. 

And that was never been rebuilt. So Greer and the USTR office in general, simply doesn’t have the capacity to really do more than one of these 3 or 1 investigations at a time. And Trump has already initiated 301 investigations on Canada, Japan, Korea, the European Union, Mexico, and, of course, China. And I’m sure there’s going to be many, many, many, many more. 

And because this is a process and you have to document and get comments and make findings, you can’t just wave a pen and make it happen. The US simply doesn’t have the staffing. That’s necessary to do that. And then third, on top of all of that, USTR is responsible for negotiating or renegotiating every other trade deal. 

Remember that when this all started in April of last year, tariff day, Liberation day, based on your politics, we put tariffs on every country on the planet. And Trump feels that that is necessary for every country on the planet. And now we’re doing 300 ones for all the big ones and probably many of the small ones in the weeks and months to come. 

But that ignores what else is going on, because the U.S. does have trade deals separate from all this. 301 stuff. So, for example, over the weekend, the United States, Canada and Mexico formally started the process of negotiating for what NAFTA is supposed to look like a year to five years from now, that until this moment was the US primary job, because Mexico and Canada or the United States is top and second largest trading partners. 

And whatever the future of American manufacturing happens to look like, or American agriculture, American energy or American population workforce, it’s going to be bound up and with whatever happens with NAFTA. But now the USTR has to do at least a dozen, three, oh ones, probably several 301 negotiations and investigations at the same time. Bottom line, this is like the hard, frustrating way to do it. 

Yes, but it should have started this way a year ago. The only alternative would have been to go to Congress and say that I need some sort of trade negotiation authority. Now, this is something that presidents in the past used to do. You’d have to go back to George W Bush for the last time this was done. It was called trade Acceleration or Trade Promotion Authority, where Congress grants the president the ability to do negotiations outside of the normal back and forth. 

Of the legalities. If you want to do that, you have to get congressional approval. The thing is, Trump really hates going to Congress because then he actually has to say out loud what he wants to do and put it up for a vote. Yay or nay. That was hard enough last year when he had a meaningful majority in the House and the Senate. 

But since then, Donald Trump has had a hard time staffing his government with people from the private sector, because there aren’t a lot of them that believe what he believes. And so he’s had to reach into his ideological allies, people who owe their political careers to him in Congress and in doing so, has whittled down the majority he has in the House, in the Senate to work with. 

And there are enough remaining trade based, business based, Republicans in the party that it’s unclear that he would get the sort of support that he would need in order to make the changes he wants to make. So that kind of leaves us in this stall where Trump is kind of forced to let the system be the system, but he’s unwilling to challenge the system legally. 

And so far in this administration, where that has ended has been with a Supreme Court case that tells him the thing that he never wants to hear. No.

The Shield of the Americas

Silhouetted soldier against a black background

Trump has launched a new regional security initiative called the Shield of the Americas. This partners with several Latin American leaders that Trump likes to target drug cartels throughout LATAM.

The U.S. would utilize special forces and intelligence teams to carry this out. While they could target cartel leaders, labs, and trafficking nodes, as long as there is demand in the North, the drug trade will persist.

Eliminating the industry would require massive troop commitments, resulting in significant political consequences. And even then, the drugs would find a way to keep flowing.

Prefer to read the transcript? Click here

Transcript

Hey, everybody, Peter Zeihan here. Coming to you from Colorado. And today we’re going to talk about what went down to the white House over the weekend. 

Specifically, there’s this new grouping called shield of the Americas that Donald Trump has initiated between the United States and a number of Latin American countries that he considers ideological allies. So, by the way, that the Latin Americans use the term further to the right, so not including Colombia or Brazil, but concluding places like El Salvador or Trinidad and Tobago or Argentina. 

Keep in mind that what means left and right in Latin America is a little bit different from what it means here in the United States, but the Trump administration has not picked up on that. Bygones. Second that to all of these governments, just like any other democracy, switch back and forth. So this is an alliance, an alignment of the moment. 

And first thing, you should not count on the current roster of countries being what is there tomorrow or the next day, or much less the day after. There are always elections going on. We won Columbia this summer. That is probably going to be quite significant. 

And so the roster moves. But what is more important about the Shield of Americas, is not so much the Secretariat or any idea of policy. There’s no talk of trade deals. It’s all all about security cooperation. And the idea is that the Trump administration has decided it wants to take the U.S. military, push it into Latin America specifically to go after drug smuggling organizations. Now, back story. Historically speaking, the United States involvement in Latin America has been somewhat limited unless there is a third party from out of hemisphere operating the whole concept of the Monroe Doctrine is it’s not so much that this is our hemisphere, but it’s certainly not your hemisphere. 

So whether it was the Germans or the Soviets or the Chinese or whatever, there’s always been a degree of built in American hostility to anyone on the outside pushing in here. That doesn’t necessarily mean that the United States is dominant economically, although there are periods in the history where that has happened. Second, with the United States is in the process, independent of Trump, exemplified by Trump of contracting its footprint and its interests in the Eastern Hemisphere. 

Now we can have a conversation of whether that’s smart or not, but politically, it’s very popular on both sides of the aisle to bring the boys home and to be less involved in trade on a global basis. I would argue that’s mostly self-defeating, and guarantees will get drawn into something bigger later. But, you know, I’m only one guy. 

If 330 million of us, my vote isn’t all that big. What it does mean, however, is that if you take the United States military and all of a sudden it’s not obsessed with the Eastern Hemisphere, and a lot of the forces come home, and of course, it’s going to be used more aggressively in the Western Hemisphere. And since there’s no country in the Western Hemisphere that’s even remotely capable of fielding a force that is of any conventional threat to the United States, then the question is, what are you going to use the tools for? 

They may have been designed for Islamic fundamentalism or the Chinese army or whatever it happened to be, but if they’re here, they’re going to be applied to different threats. And the threat of international drug trafficking organizations is obviously a significant one that everyone agrees is a problem. We just all agree on what to do with it. I would argue that the simple way to destroy all of these organizations overnight is just just not do cocaine. 

But again, I’m only one vote of 330 million. So we now have the Trump administration and at least 14 other governments, at least on the surface, agreeing to deploy American forces throughout the hemisphere to combat these cartels. Now, two things. Number one, as I said originally, the roster is going to change. And so you’re going to see a lot of small bases and coordination facilities popping up and then going away after an election and then popping up again after the next election. 

And that means we’re not talking about a regular army, and probably not even the Marines, because the type of permanent footprint that’s necessary for those two institutions is in the billions of dollars of investment. And you can’t just come and go and come and go and expect it to be useful at all. It takes months to deploy the Army in a meaningful way. 

Marines a little bit faster, but not by a lot. This is not a job for the Navy and aircraft carriers. This is much more specific. Once you limit what you can do with bases, and that means facilities that are small. And then if they get folded up tomorrow, it’s no big deal. Which means that the entire American deployment for this sort of thing is going to be special forces, whether it is the Green Berets or the Rangers or the Seals or the CIA. 

Now that community, the Special Forces community, has more than doubled the number of operators they’ve had as an outcome of the war on terror, because you never knew where you needed to drop in a small team of a dozen people. Now that the war on terror is over, I don’t want to say that the Special Forces Command has nothing to do, but they’ve gone from having a long grading war where they’ve been working in tandem with over 100,000 Americans deployed in combat situations, throughout the Middle East to all of a sudden that’s gone. 

And so they have become the premier force for the American president, whoever that happens to be, to address whatever issue happens to be coming up in the world or to a degree, deniable, they’re small, they’re agile, they’re lethal, they’re very skilled. They have a long logistical tail. But that means that at the point of the spear is a lot of force behind it. 

So when you look at things like Latin America, you think of drug cartels. This is really the perfect tool for the job, independent of the fact that it’s twice as big as it used to be. It depends on the fact that they’re actually very good at what they do. The only problem, and it’s not a really big one from my point of view, is that they’ve been training for something else for 25 years now. 

There’s not a lot of desert territory in Latin America where there’s drug trafficking. You’re talking primarily mountains. You’re talking primarily jungle or jungle mountains. That means we’re probably going to be seeing the teams deployed throughout the length and the breadth of the region. The question and only Donald Trump can answer this question right now is whether or not you’re going to deploy them exclusively in places where you have a degree of political cover and agreement with the host country. 

In a place like El Salvador, pretty easy. El Salvador is not a major drug trafficking location in places like Colombia, where the government is currently kind of hostile. That’s a different question. As a rule, when Latin American countries realize they have a cartel problem, they’re usually pretty enthusiastic about working with the United States on security matters. But it’s always been a step of remove. 

So, for example, if you look at Plan Colombia, which was the deal we cut with the Colombians in the early 2000, we shipped a lot of equipment, we provided a lot of Intel work. We provided some naval support, but it was always Colombian boots on the ground doing the actual grunt work. And in doing so, it ended their Civil War and led to a collapse in cocaine production. 

You’re not going to do that with ten special forces teams. You can go after specific nodes. You can go after specific production sites, you can go after specific people. But we’re talking about an industry here. The drug industry gets tens of billions of dollars. And as long as there’s demand north of the border in the United States for these products, special forces are not going to be able to change the math to a huge degree. 

That’s the second problem. The third problem is really much bigger. And that’s Mexico, in Mexico, with the current government in Colombia. Shame bomb. We have a government that is much more willing to work with the United States, even in the United States, as being a bully. But you’re talking about where the cartels, the big ones, originated. 

And while they are in the process of fracturing because their leaderships have been removed, all of the economics that are still pushing the cocaine north are still there. And so you’re talking about having to do something like not special forces, but actually deploying tens of thousands of troops in order to impose a security reality. Here’s the thing. We’ve tried that if you go back to the Afghan war, at its height, we had 90,000 troops there. 

And while they were trying to hold the country together to fight the war on terror, heroin production increased. Because you can only be so many places once Mexico is over twice the size of Afghanistan, Mexico has over twice the population of Afghanistan. And so even if we were to put a couple hundred thousand troops in Mexico, I really doubt it would be enough to change the overall economics of drugs. 

Anyway, bottom line of all of this is, while the United States can’t solve these problems, as long as there is an insatiable source of narcotics demand, it does have some tools that allow it to interfere in the region in a really deep piercing, meaningful way. The question is whether or not the political and economic side effects of that are worth the perceived benefits. 

Mild disruption of cocaine production, transiting versus breaking the political relationship that allows, say, the trade relationship to happen. Because Mexico is by far our largest trading partner and will be for the remainder of my life, and without them in the American trading network, everything we need to do gets a lot more difficult.

Strike Targeting Problems in Ukraine

Imagine of a drone firing missiles

The U.S. is pressuring Ukraine to avoid striking specific Russian energy infrastructure. As you could imagine, this all has to do with American economic interests.

Chevron and ExxonMobil have a stake in major Kazakh oil projects, which flow through Russia to be exported. Ukrainian strikes on any related infrastructure risk harming those American energy companies’ bottom line, and that simply will not do (even though Trump stopped providing military aid to Ukraine over a year ago).

Prefer to read the transcript? Click here

Transcript

Hey all, Peter Zeihan here. Coming to you from Colorado. The news this week in Kazakhstan, of all places, is that the United States is starting to point its finger at Ukraine about the targets it’s supposed to attack in Russian territory. The issue is that over the last several months, Ukrainian drones have gotten more effective with better range and more explosive capacity and better accuracy. 

And they’re now regularly targeting Russian infrastructure, several hundred kilometers. On the other side of the international border. And several of those attacks have struck an area called Novorossiysk, which is an oil loading facility on the Russian part of the Black Sea. The issue that apparently the American government has is upstream of that pipeline on the other side of another international boundary with Kazakhstan. 

We have some investments by American super majors, and those super majors have gone to the U.S government and said, hey, hey, hey. And so the U.S government has gone to Ukraine, said no, no, no. The two projects in question are called Tengiz and Cash are gone. Now. Tengiz is the original foreign direct investment project by Western companies into the former Soviet Union. 

So old that actually predates the fall of the Soviet Union, was negotiated under Gorbachev. And then Kazakhstan got it and it became a Kazakh project. It is a consortium that involves, Chevron, which has a 50% share. ExxonMobil, which has a 25% share, and then a series of local and Russian firms, it produces about what’s called 700,000 barrels a day. 

On a good day, considerably below where it was supposed to be. But the problem with that project is the pipeline. C, the pipeline, comes out from Kazakhstan, goes around the Caspian Sea, crosses into Russia, and then uses a lot of old repurposed Soviet section. So it’s kind of jigsaw together before it gets to another SEC. And so the Russians have insisted that they be able to put their crude into the pipeline as well. 

So while you do have a signal field that does produce a large volume, it’s kind of capped at what it can do because the Russians demand access to the pipe for the rest of the capacity. The second project, kasha gone is much more difficult. It’s offshore. It’s in the Caspian Sea. You only have one American company involved. 

That’s ExxonMobil. They have about a one sixth share. It’s not doing nearly as well, but even it is getting up over a 400,000 barrels a day. So you put it together. You’re talking over a million barrels a day. This is this is real crude. And the overseas terminal can handle it. And then some. But it’s impossible for the Ukrainians to attack the Russian energy infrastructure that ends in overseas without it also being perceived by American companies that it’s impinging upon their, economic interests. 

And so the Ukrainians are basically told, go attack something else. And that is exactly how the Ukrainians have interpreted it, not don’t attack energy infrastructure like the Biden administration used to tell them, don’t attack energy infrastructure for which American interests are involved. How this is going to go is going to get really interesting because when something loads up at an overseas port, you don’t necessarily know what it’s loading up with. 

And as soon as Ukraine started going after shadow fleet tankers, more and more tankers are refusing to even go to Novorossiysk. So this is one of those six and one half dozen another. How do you define it? How are you going to enforce it? But the bottom line is, is that the United States is no longer contributor to Ukraine’s military defense. 

And in the way it used to be. It used to be that the United States was the majority of the military aid and provided very little economic aid. They left that to Europe after a year of Donald Trump. The United States is still providing no economic aid, but is now providing no military aid at all. So how talks evolve among the Ukrainians, the Americans and the Russians is going to termine how the Ukrainians decide to leverage their military technology here. 

There are a number of ways that the Ukrainians could go after pumping stations on different projects for, say, the Druze, the pipeline that used to bring in lots of crude into Germany. 

But those attacks target facilities that supply crude to Hungary and Slovakia, which are two countries in Europe that are extraordinarily pro-Russian at the moment, to the point that they’re even shutting off fuel and electricity deliveries to Ukraine because they want to make sure they can still get Russian oil flowing through Ukraine. 

So it’s we’re still dealing here with the detritus of the Soviet collapse, because it’s not just one empire anymore. 

It’s 25 different countries across Central Europe. In the former Soviet Union proper. All of them have chunks of infrastructure that were designed for a different air and a different political reality. And Ukraine is just in the unfortunate part of being in the middle of it. 

While under attack. There’s no such complications. However, further north, there’s another major pipeline system, the Baltic Pipeline network, that terminates near Saint Petersburg, which is just as big as what’s going on in over a sec. And as we’ve seen in recent months, that two is now within range of Ukrainian drones. More importantly, we have the Europeans that are in the process of negotiating how to go after the shadow fleets directly. 

So we could actually have a number of NATO countries, ten of them who border this littoral, who could all of a sudden all decide on the same day because they tend to coordinate policies, that no more. And then you’ve got to have Denmark, Britain, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Germany and Poland all at the same time. 

Same. Nope. It’s over and there is no way to redirect that crude somewhere else. And if you want to talk about something that’s going to hit Russia’s bottom line, that’s the way to do it. And now the Ukrainians are in a position where they may be forced to concentrate all of their long range attacks on one specific system. 

I would not want to be running that system.

The U.S. Inches Towards Iran Conflict

Flags of the United States and Iran blending. Licensed by Envato Elements

U.S. strikes against Iran appear imminent, with two aircraft carriers being positioned in the Persian Gulf. Trump has presented Iran with negotiation terms that would effectively end Iran’s status as a regional power, so it’s no surprise that negotiations have stalled.

The terms laid out by Trump would end Iranian nuclear enrichment, force them to give up long-range missile capabilities, and stop supporting regional paramilitary groups. Spoiler alert: that’s Iran’s entire strategy and security model. Any conflict would likely start in the air, then move to targeting strategic assets like Kharg Island. Once that happens, Iran would be crippled.

Outside intervention would be unlikely, and removing Iranian oil from global markets wouldn’t be the end of the world. The main concern would be destabilizing the region and risking the formation of new terror groups, although things like that take time.

Prefer to read the transcript? Click here

Transcript

Hey, everybody. Peter Zeihan here, coming to you from Colorado. It’s the 23rd of February, and we’re going to talk about Iran, because what the United States has been moving into the region in terms of military hardware gives us a good idea of the, type of strike that the Trump administration is considering. The headlines are that one third of all currently deployed U.S. naval assets are in the region, which is really a bad way to look at it, because the Middle East, it’s in the middle. 

It’s between things. So it’s really not strange to have a lot of stuff there because it’s coming and going. So let’s talk about more specifics. The USS Abraham Lincoln, which is one of the Nimitz super carriers, is off the coast of Oman. And that’s a country on the southeastern corner of the Arabian Peninsula, right at the mouth of the Gulf. 

So if the United States wanted that carrier in the Gulf would take a day or two wherever it needs to go. Second, the USS Ford, which is the newest of our super carriers, by far the largest, most powerful military platform humanity has ever created is currently in the Eastern Mediterranean. It was sighted this morning off the coast of Crete. 

Crete is an island that’s in the southeastern part of the Greek territory. So it could be going through Suez in a day or two if it wanted to. In addition, there’s at least 60 aircraft in Jordan. If there was going to be a strike, we’re now basically looking at the capacity of hitting hundreds of targets in a very short period of time and suggesting an air war with a duration of a month or less, probably closer to a week or two. 

If you want to do anything more, you’re gonna need a lot more supply ships in the area, for replenishing bombs and missiles and whatnot. But it does look like the Trump administration is preparing for a scenario where the Iranians are utterly incapable of striking back at US forces, so they decide to attack Israel. Air go, all of jet aircraft that are in Jordan. 

There’s a handful of F-35, so you can see them from satellite imagery, and the rest are basically there to intercept drones as they’re going through. This is a significantly larger deployment into Jordan than what they had, during the last assault last year when they attacked the nuclear program end Iran with mixed results. This is intended to drop a lot more ordnance on a lot more places. 

And considering that even if all they do is go after the nuclear program, where there may be 50 sites, they’re going to have a lot more, subsidiary strikes in the areas to take out command and control and air defense in the rest. The question, of course, is whether the Iranians can do much about this. And the answer is no. 

Not only did American and Israeli strikes over the last year really gut the air defense network over Iran. No one has been able to step in and replace the equipment. Your options are Russia or China. The Chinese stuff, to be perfectly blunt, is really shitty. And the Iranians are really not interested in getting it unless it’s the only thing that’s on offer. 

They’d rather have offensive weapons to serve as retaliation than defensive weapons that really aren’t going to do anything. As for the Russians, the Russians are locked down in the Ukraine war and can’t make enough jets to replenish their own supplies. So while there have been a number of contracts signed to get things like the su 35, which is a fighter bomber jet, to Iran, the Russians just don’t have any to give. 

So the only thing that the Russians have been able to provide is some relatively low tech, anti aircraft systems called verbals, which are MANPADs, shoulder launch kind of things. You can use those to take out helicopters, maybe some very low flying jets, but not the sort of strikes that the United States is going to be making. 

They’re more about making a statement of solidarity than anything else, because any of the equipment that the Russians could provide is already in use. And as the Israelis and more recently the Ukrainians have proven, even the top notch Russian stuff like the S-400 really isn’t as hot as the Russians have tried to make it sound these last 30 years. 

And if they can’t stand against Ukrainian MiGs, they’re certainly not going to stand against American F-35s. So as to the goal here, remember that the Americans are demanding that the Iranians shut down their missile program, their nuclear program, and shut down all funding to paramilitaries throughout the region, which is basically the equivalent of them demanding that the United States shut down the Marine Corps, the Army, their entire air force, and decommission the Navy. 

So from the Iranian point of view, if they do this, they’re done as a strategic power. And so what we will probably see is the two of them heading to a collision. And if Trump gives the order, we will have a gutting of a lot of the industrial base in Iran. And it basically just becomes a sea. The state kind of like North Korea, but with not as many sharp, pointy sticks to point at everybody else. 

This would destroy their economic capacity to wage meaningful war, because right now, oil income is 90% of their earnings, in 90% of that oil income comes from one spot. And the idea that this administration in this moment is not going to take advantage of that, is pretty slim. 

I do want to point out one really weird thing about this, though. Iran doesn’t export a lot of crude anymore. Between sanctions and more importantly, their own idiotic approach to foreign investment that basically penalizes anyone who’s interested in investing in the country. Iran’s oil sector has been in a nosedive for the last several years after degrading for a generation. 

So total exports out of Iran are really only about a million barrels a day. And if the export infrastructure is just, disrupted, you know, it’s not going to come back anytime soon. The market can five that right now. And in a post Iran scenario, what’s going to happen is more or less what’s been happening in a pre Iran scenario. 

And that Oman and Kuwait and Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates and especially Saudi Arabia will be able to send their crude not to the United States for net exporters, but to the East Asian rim where the vast majority of it goes for China. So, ironically, we’re in a situation here where the strategic. 

What’s the word I’m looking for overhang of the United States not liking Iran in a run that like in the United States, that goes back to 1979, it’s kind of outdated. And an economic strategy point of view. No longer is Middle Eastern crude supporting the American ally network. It’s supporting China. And so we’re now in this weird situation where strategic thinking in the United States hasn’t caught up yet. 

And we’re considering going to war with a country that has no impact on our ability to fight whatever’s next. Whether you think that’s worth it or not, of course, do your own strategic math. But the old argument that we need to keep oil flowing from the Persian Gulf to support the allies against the Soviet Union, that became outdated more than ten years ago, and now it’s it’s kind of funny that it’s still driving decision making really anywhere. 

And I don’t mean that as a pure critique of the Trump administration. That’s a critique of Tehran as well. They just haven’t moved on either.

I’ve Got This Bridge to Sell You…

The Gordie Howe Bridge under construction | Photo courtesy of Wikimedia Commons

The Canadians built and financed a new bridge connecting Detroit and Ontario, but now Trump wants his 50%.

The bridge in question is the Gordie Howe Bridge. It will strengthen the supply chains in North America’s core auto industry hub and act as an alternative to the Ambassador Bridge.

Canada’s geopolitical reality is that the U.S. will always hold more leverage, because the Canadian economy is so deeply integrated with the American economy. This relationship typical manifests as the U.S. securing more favorable terms in infrastructure projects with Canada, and this is no different. Just your standard case of biggest kid on the playground.

Prefer to read the transcript? Click here

Transcript

Hey, everybody. Peter Zeihan here. Coming to you from Colorado. Today we’re talking about trade with Canada specifically. There is a new bridge, the Gordie Howe, that is supposed to connect, Detroit to the Canadian province of Ontario. It’s been under construction for about the last decade, and it’s supposed to begin operations this year. But Donald Trump has said that he’s not going to allow that to happen unless at least half of the ownership is transferred to the US federal government. 

The Canadians paid for the whole thing. The idea is it’ll be a toll bridge. once its construction is paid off the income will be split 5050 between, Canadian investors and the state of Michigan. Trump of course, because of this is an international connection, has the ability to end it in a heartbeat. 

And that’s what he’s doing right now. The backdrop, Gordie Howe is a desperately needed transport connection right now. All of the road traffic and rail traffic that goes between Michigan, which is one of the big U.S. industrial states, and Ontario, which is Canada’s primary industrial state, goes through a single bridge called the Ambassador Bridge. And it is the single most cross bridge for commercial purposes in the world and is the backbone of the relationship for the US auto industry. 

Keep in mind that pretty much everything that happens in Ontario, from an industrial point of view, is integrated into the United States in some way. And this is the primary conduit. So adding another conduit would be a huge boost to, the American economy from a manufacturing point of view, not to mention good for Canada as well. 

The proximate issue is that the commerce secretary of the United States, guy by the name of Howard Lutnick, is buddies with a guy by the name of Matt Maroon. Literally. That’s how his name is pronounced, who owns the ambassadorial bridge and has been campaigning against anything that would build another link ever since the idea was first floated back in, I want to say 2012, because it would be competition for his project. 

Right now he has a monopoly, and I have never met anyone on Wall Street who has ever described Howard. Let me, because anything other than desperate to be corrupted. And so apparently he had a conversation with maroon and then had a conversation with Trump. And now Trump is campaigning against the bridge. Let me go, by the way, is the guy on the cabinet who showed up the most in the Epstein files, if you’re into that sort of scandalous details. 

Anyway, the bottom line here is not that this is a corruption thing or a trade thing. The bottom line is this is a geopolitical thing. Whenever you’re dealing with trans border transport links between the United States and Canada, the United States is always, always, always, always going to have the upper hand. Canada only has about 35 million people. 

They’re scattered across the entirety of the southern border of the country. And even where they are in dense concentrations like, say, Toronto and Quebec, they don’t like each other very much and try to limit their infrastructure. So every single Canadian province but one trades more with the United States than they do with one another. And any infrastructure on the border that is designed to facilitate links is always going to be done. 

The U.S way. So if you remember back to the 5060s, we had something called the Intracoastal Waterway system, which uses the Saint Lawrence River, which empties up through eastern Canada. But comes down and connects to the Great Lakes. Great lakes have things like Niagara Falls. There’s a lot of natural obstacles. And so there was an effort in Canada back in the early 50s to build out this massive infrastructure that would connect everything together. 

But that also meant connecting to the United States. And so the United States basically did some version of what they’re doing right now with Donald Trump said, you pay for pretty much all of it, in this case, about 75%, and we get full access. Some version of that will undoubtedly manifest with this new bridge, regardless of what is right versus wrong and what has been agreed to before. 

Donald Trump actually agreed enthusiastically to the creation of this bridge when he was president the first time around. But the first time around, his commerce secretary wasn’t nearly as desiring of being corrupted. So here we are, for Canada, this is just part of doing business with the United States. There is no other option. And so just like with the intercoastal, Canada gets to pay for it all. 

The United States gets the majority of the benefits. The alternative is to not build or use the bridge in which candidate remains fractured and loses access to the world’s largest investment and commercial market. And for Canada, that’s basically a choice between a first world country and being something less. Is it fair? Nope. Is it new? Also? Nope.

Trump Announces $12B Rare Earth Stockpile

Photo of rare earth minerals: praseodymium, cerium, lanthanum, neodymium, samarium, and gadolinium. Photo by Wikimedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rare-earth_element#/media/File:Rareearthoxides.jpg

The Trump administration has announced a plan to create a $12 billion stockpile of rare earths. The goal is to create a buffer against any supply disruptions, but this is just a band-aid.

Depending on the metal and use case, this stockpile might give the US a five-month supply. But the core problem still exists: the US doesn’t have any domestic refining or processing. It’s not all that hard or expensive to extract and process this stuff; the US just hasn’t invested in the infrastructure to do so.

If the goal was to establish real supply security, this stockpile isn’t the way to go about it. But hey, at least we’ve got an extra five months.

Prefer to read the transcript? Click here

Transcript

Hey all, Peter Zeihan here, coming to you from Colorado. And today we’re looking at a new initiative from the Trump administration to solve the critical materials issues. Short version. The United States doesn’t refine most of its materials these days. It relies on countries that have much lower pollution concerns, like, say, China or India, to do the processing. And then we buy the process material and do whatever with us. 

What that means is, well, while you save a lot of money and you certainly clean up your own local environment, you subcontract all of this out to countries that, in the case of China, might not be the most friendly and then might cut off supplies at a later time, as the Chinese have done to a number of countries from time to time, including the United States. 

Anyway, the idea is you establish a $12 billion stockpile. The U.S. government is going to be tapping the import export bank. And so the idea of using one government agency to finance the development of another, I personally find that delicious, but bygones. And the idea is you buy these processed metals, primarily rare earth metals, and then they are in the United States. 

So you have a buffer. I don’t want overstate this. It’s a good step. It’s in the right direction, but it’s going to get crazy. $12 billion of critical materials for a country that is a $25 trillion economy is not going to last a long time, probably somewhere between 1 and 5 months, based on the specific material, because there are over 30 different materials that they’re talking about here. 

It’s a step in the right direction. But if your goal is to really achieve a national security issue and economic self-sufficiency, you need to make these things yourself. Right now they’d just be buying them from China on the open market a little bit more than what we need, and put them into basically a safe. What you need to do is build up the processing. 

The problem here is that there is no such thing on the planet as a rare Earth element mine or rare Earth element production line. Rare earth metals exist as small, small impurities in other mineral extraction, primarily things like silver, but also copper and zinc and a lot of other things, uranium, for example. And so what happens is you have your mine that produces X mineral. 

You process that to get X refined mineral and then the waste material you then go through a separate set of steps that involves several hundred vats of acid. Basically with every step you concentrate the mineral that you’re after, whatever it happens to be. And after six months to a year of such processing through acid, you eventually get some refined metal rare earth metal that you can use, but it takes several tons of raw material to generate one ounce of the finished metal over months of steps, and hundreds of vats us and until the United States builds that infrastructure, which isn’t technically difficult. It’s chemically very tricky. Until you do that, you are never going to have independence from international suppliers. Now, there’s nothing about this technology that is new. It was developed back in the 19 tens and 1920s. The U.S. obviously can do it. It’s not even particularly expensive even if it is environmentally dirty. 

But it does require space, and it does require capital and does require planning. It does require infrastructure. And at the moment, the Trump administration has not put a dime into that effort. If and when that changes, I will be there with bells on to sing and dance. That is not what is happening today. Today we are building the equivalent of a piggy bank that we still have to fill up.

Rolling Back Regulations in the U.S.

A gavel and law book on a desk

Trump’s pledge to roll back regulations isn’t inherently bad, but the way he’s going about it is problematic in just about every way.

Trump’s second term has brought about a new level of bureaucratic hollowing, leaving no capacity to manage regulations already in place. So, we’re left with a backlog of outdated policies, with an admistration who has no intention of enforcing them. Imagine the nightmare this creates for anyone trying to operate under those circumstances.

What we need is a functioning government with experienced staff who can regulate these systems and give clear guidance to those who need it. The bar is low, but the current administration is still trying to play limbo.

Prefer to read the transcript? Click here

Transcript

Hey all, Peter Zeihan here. Coming to you from Colorado. Taking a question from the Patreon page today, specifically about regulation in the United States. Donald Trump says that he’s going to strip out ten words of regulation for every word that gets put in. This is up from his first term when he said the ratio was going to be 5 to 1. 

And will this have a meaningful impact? The person was asking the question, was quite circumspect about this. And he realizes that some regulations are good. So it’s just a question of whether this is a pro or con at large. Overall it’s con, but probably not for the reasons that you’re thinking, the two most regulatory heavy administrations that we have had in modern history are the Biden administration and the Obama administration, and by far the most administrations we’ve ever had are Trump one and Trump two. 

But they’re very different beasts. The Obama administration stacked itself with people with no real world experience. There was only like five years total of people who’ve had a real job. Most of them came from academia and ideologues and think tanks and people who had never actually participated in the real economy. So a lot of their regulatory structures existed because the president hated to take meetings. 

And so he never went to Congress for anything. And so they made up what they thought the ideology would demand and try to force that on corporate America. And needless to say, it made a lot of mess. The Biden administration was kind of the opposite, and that most of the people who were in the administration had real world experience, either as mayors or governors or corporate titans. 

And so while there were still a lot of regulation that went in, it wasn’t nearly as crazy. 

Trump very different beast. In Trump one, the Trump administration, we’re all going to be right back that up. President Trump didn’t think he was going to win in his election with Hillary Clinton. And so when he became president, he tapped the Republican brain trust very heavily in order to build out his cabinet. 

And all the senior positions in the bureaucracy. And in doing so, a lot of people with corporate experience became bureaucrats. And in doing so, when they came across regulations that they knew from personal experience were stupid, they stripped them out or modified them to make it less onerous for the business community. And so, as a rule, the business community was broadly pro-Trump throughout the bulk of his first administration. 

That’s not where we are with Trump. Two, President Trump spent his time out of power during the Biden administration, purging the Republican Party of anyone who might ever come across as knowing anything, because he wanted to make sure that everybody knew he was the smartest person in the room. And the easiest way to do that was to dumb down the room. 

So he comes in to president the second time around. There’s no longer a brain trust and the Republican establishment, for him to tap. And then he goes into the bureaucracy and fire the top 1500 or so people, but doesn’t necessarily replace them. So what we have is this weird dichotomy. And yes, the regulatory frameworks, the the system that builds out new regulations that has been frozen in very, very, very, very, very few new regulations have gone into place under Trump. 

Two, however, these institutions are not staffed out, so they’re also not going through the old regulations and purging them or trimming them or amending them or getting rid of them or whatever it happened to be. So in some ways, we now have the worst both worlds. We have this massive regulatory hangover that dates back to the first Obama term, a lot of stuff that still hasn’t been cleared out. 

At the same time, we now have an administration that isn’t putting any brain power whatsoever into cleaning up that system. So yes, we’re not getting new regulations. And broadly speaking, for the business community, that’s a plus. But then we’ve got this massive overhang of stuff that is outdated or ill conceived, or never went through Congress or never went out for review. 

That is still on the books, and you’re legally required to still follow them. The Trump administration is telling people just don’t follow them then, which puts business in the worst of all positions. They’re legally liable if they violate the corporate codes. But this federal government is saying that they won’t enforce the corporate codes. So we get this rule of law problem. 

At the same time, we have an outdated and overburdened regulatory structure, and corporate America is left in the middle trying to decide which specific legal risk they want to deal with. Not a pretty situation to be in. The solution is for the government to be the government, but the government can’t be the government without people.

Venezuela’s End: Peter Goes Squirrel Killin’

squirrel laying on a log

Following the capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, I’ve had a ton of theories and ideas flood in. So, it looks like it’s time for a good old-fashioned squirrel killin’.

Some of the theories (aka squirrels) that we’re going to be killing today are: Venezuela was a credible drone/military threat to the US, Russia was waiting for an excuse (like this) to attack the US, China might use this as justification, and that this was just a warm-up for Iran.

As you can see, no shortage of squirrels here.

Prefer to read the transcript? Click here

Transcript

Hey everybody Peter Zeihan here coming from Colorado. It’s above 50 degrees, so I think we would go for a hike. Anyway, a lot of folks have written in with a lot of questions about what’s gone on in the aftermath of Venezuela. For those of you who have been in a coma over the last weekend, Delta forces went into Caracas and grabbed the president, Nicolas Maduro, and brought him to New York to face arraignment, where he is facing, narco terrorism and conspiracy charges that date back over a decade. 

We’ll never hear from him again. Anyway, lots of people had lots of questions about what this means. So the point of this video is to do what I call squirrel killing. So coming up with these arguments that people think might be have something to them, show why they really don’t what the real issue is. So let’s start with the big one. 

And that’s the idea that part of the reason why the US, went after Maduro is because of the fear that, Venezuela could be used as a military base to attack the United States, particularly with drones. Short version is. No, first of all, there are very few drone systems on the planet that have the range that is necessary to cross the Caribbean. 

You’re talking over a thousand miles here and hit the United States. Of the ones that could, most are American. But the Russians don’t have models like that. The Chinese don’t have models like that. Ironically, the Ukrainians now do. Pretty sure they’re not going to want to attack the United States. That just leaves Iran, which has the showerheads, which the newer ones do have probably barely the range that’s necessary. 

What they lack is decision making capability and real guidance. 

And so when you program a showerhead, you have to tell it what routes to follow and where to drop its payload. And in the open ocean, there’s nothing to follow. So technologically, there really isn’t a weapon system that is set for this task. And even if there was, the first city that you’re going to hit, the only one of size that you’re going to hit is Miami. 

You know, we all have our opinions about Miami, but I don’t think any of us like, oh, Miami. That’s militarily critical. Yeah. No. So, you know, blowing up some hotels on South Beach is not the sort of thing that the United States is going to be intensely concerned about. What it would do, however, is trigger an adverse reaction in the American political system, which would lead to massive American counter strikes on whoever was behind it. 

Because clearly, the Venezuelan government, the Venezuelan economy can’t make a biplane, much less a drone. So not that one. What’s next? 

The Russians have been itching to have an excuse to attack the United States. And this is it. No, the Russians are locked down in a war that has been moving incredibly slowly. At the pace they’re going. They’re not going to conquer Ukraine, this century. And they need to really finish it up before they run out of troops in just a few years. In addition, the Ukrainians recently have been on counter attacks and have reclaimed a number of cities, including, you ask, and there just isn’t any Russian spare capacity to do anything else anywhere. They’ve even pulled a lot of troops out of not just the Far East, but off of the NATO border in order to focus them on Ukraine. And if if they were stupid enough to think that they could do otherwise, let’s say they stage some weapons in Cuba, for example. 

Number one, the Cubans would not go for it after Venezuela. And the Cubans are pretty sure that they’re next, and they’re desperate to find a way to avoid an American attack. Staging Russian weapons all 1963, much less launching them, would guarantee the end of their regime because the Soviet Union is no longer exists, and post-Soviet Russia, in its current form, really can’t do a thing to protect any of its allies, whether that is Iran or Venezuela or Cuba. So no. And if if that were to happen, I can guarantee you that the president not just Donald J. Trump, any American president, would then make ending Vladimir Putin at the very, very top of a very short list of things to do once Cuba was neutralized. And if there’s one thing Vladimir Putin values above all else, it’s his own skin. And every time in the past he has been personally threatened, he has backed down, especially when it comes to relations with the United States. So No. 

One more thing on the Russians. You know, it says doesn’t react well to threats, especially if the threats actually make us bleed a little bit. So if you think back to, say, Sputnik or the Cuban missile Crisis, the US massively overreacted and it caused the Soviet Union a series not just geopolitical defeats, but global humiliation in their inability to counter what the United States did. 

And Putin doesn’t just know this. Putin has lived this, so he will never do something that is intended as a direct strike on the United States. You always work through third parties. He will always work to turn us against one another. That’s one of the reasons why the Russians intervened in the elections. That’s one of the reasons why they both support Trump and oppose him. Russian propaganda is very active on all sides of all ideological debates and especially the culture war. So, you know, careful where you’re sourcing, no matter who you are. And the goal of the Putin administration is very simple to get the United States to lash out, to get it to react badly, to get it to attack, but not Russia, to get them to do someone else. Which is one of the reasons why Greenland is featuring so hot and heavy right now, because the Russians are actively working now to get the Trump administration to attack a NATO ally. Don’t do it. All right, what’s next? 

Okay. Next. Squirrel. The idea that the Russians, the Chinese and maybe others will use, the United States grabbing of Maduro to justify military action in their own theaters. Can’t rule out what people will say, but this is certainly not going to nudge them in a direction. Be purely rhetorical. Let’s start with the Russians again. They’re in a full fledged war where they’ve redirected all of their military assets to one theater, and they’re not doing all that well. 

Also, we’re talking about a war where the Russians have literally set up rape camps and establish a cabinet level officer to assist and coordinate the mass kidnaping of children in the thousands from the occupied territories. We have over 100,000 documented war crimes. It is difficult for me to wrap my mind around what else the Russians feel they need justification to do in the Ukraine war. 

So, you know, it might make it out in a press release, but it’s not going to move any decision that they’ve already made. The second one is China, of course, gets a little bit squirrely, but still, I don’t think it’s going to change their meaning. If the Chinese thought they could do a lightning raid overnight and overthrow Taiwan, they would. 

But that’s not how advanced technocratic democracies work. Also, if they thought they could do it, they probably would have done it already. Keep in mind our discussion of military deployment capability before the Chinese don’t have it. The Russians don’t have it. No one really has it, except for the United States into a much, much, much, much lower degree. 

The French and the Brits, who mostly focus their deployments on territories they already control part of their other colonies of their empires, if you want to call them that. So, keep in mind that every war that the Chinese have fought on land since 1949 comes down to just two basic conflicts. One with the Russians, over an island and one with the Vietnamese where they had their asses handed to them. 

I’m not suggesting that the military of China is incompetent today. I will point out, however, that it is in the process of being massively purged and to think that their order of battle actually matches what they can do is a bit of a stretch. But the bottom line is that, vitriolic, rhetoric against Taiwan is bread and butter to the Chinese Communist Party, especially these last eight years, as she has basically purged everybody in the country. 

So if they start using some North Korea style rhetoric and not only wouldn’t be new, but it also has not shaped strategic policy to this point. Basically, these are authoritarian, expansionist, neo imperialist powers who are not constrained by rule of law or allies. They don’t need justification from anyone to attempt what they want to try to do. 

Their only constraints are physical, of which they have many. What’s next? 

The new president, Rodriguez of Venezuela, said that this was all Israel and the Jews……..What’s next? 

Okay. What else? That Venezuela is a warm up for the real country. Iran, which is clearly next. Probably not now. Cuba. Cuba’s probably next, and we’ve already dealt with that in a previous video. But Iran’s a very different situation. Well, the United States certainly has the military capability of interfering in Iran’s oil shipments, because you could either stop them at Kharg Island, where everything is loaded, or the Straits of Hormuz, which is a narrow passageway out of the Persian Gulf that everything has to pass through. 

That’s a lot different from taking up the political leadership. See, Venezuela wasn’t exactly a one man show, but it was definitely a strongman system with a tight cluster at the top that helped him loot the country. And then very little below. There may be a mass movement, of chavistas, but they’re not organized in the way that say, the Democratic Republican Party is. 

So, like, if someone were to take out the American leadership at the top, even every member of Congress, there’s still the states and localities, and there’s 2 million elites in the United States in the political class. That’s not the case in Venezuela. You had a couple dozen. And that’s certainly not the case in Iran. Two big reasons why Iran is probably not next. 

Number one is that elite, probably 10,000 mullahs are part of the clerical class, and it’s going to take a lot more than some Delta forces guys or a bad flu season to take them all out. So even if you could get the Supreme Commander, you wouldn’t be able to exercise the regime. The second problem is geographic. 

Tehran is definitely not coastal in the way that Caracas is just a few miles from the water. So you’re talking about inserting over a couple hundred miles of desert mountains? No. I’m sorry, I shouldn’t say desert mountains. A lot of these are not desert. It’s populated. 

And as the United States found out back in the 70s during the Carter administration, that if you try to send a bunch of helicopters to pull people out, there’s a really good chance that it’s all going to end very badly, just like it did with the hostage rescue back in 1979, I think. So much more durable regime. Much harder to get to. And I just don’t see that working. Doesn’t mean that there can’t be an angle for American policy on Iran that’s going to evolve because of this and become much more muscular and threatening. All of that is absolutely possible. But this isn’t a dress rehearsal in any way 

It’s a very different economic, political and strategic challenge to go after Iran.

Why on Earth Would We Take Greenland?

Town of Aasiaat (Greenland) during winter season

Taking Greenland is worse than pointless both economically and strategically. As importantly, Denmark is arguably America’s most earnest ally, and for decades has given the United States anything it has asked for.

Prefer to read the transcript? Click here

Transcript

Hey, all Peter Zeihan here coming to you from a very snowy Colorado. We’ve got about seven inches, so far in about three. More is on the way. Because of everything that’s been going on across the world, and everyone’s talking about what the Trump administration is getting next. And because Greenland keeps coming up over and over and over again, I thought it would be a good time to explain why the United States taking Greenland is one of the dumbest ideas that I have heard in my life. And if you think back in the last 30 years, there’s been a lot of dumb, let’s just go through what the people who say it’s a good idea why those things are all wrong. Number one, we need it for defense purposes, because there’s Chinese and Russian ships everywhere. 

The Russian Navy has been in a not so slow disintegration now for 30 years. And because of Ukraine, where they’ve basically lost one of their entire fleets, now their Arctic sea fleet is the best one that they have. But it is a pale shadow of what it was 20 years ago, much less 40 years ago. And the Russian ability to project power to the North Atlantic simply does not exist. And for that, the United Kingdom is a better counter. 

And we already have naval bases there. Number two, have we in militarize that we can protect power? No, 80% of the country is under permanent ice. Another 5% is moving glaciers. The other 10% is, kind of the climate of, say, the Aleutian Islands, but with a worse winter. No good ports at all. So any sort of infrastructure you’re going to build, if you’re trying to project power, is going to have to be some sort of floating platform off the coast, kind of like what the United States tried to do with Gaza, which was a disaster. 

But you going to be doing this for military vessels? There’s also the question of what would that achieve? Some people say that if you control Greenland, then you control at least part of the Arctic Ocean. Right? The ship between Asia and North America. And while that is true, you’re talking about $1 trillion investment to encourage the Chinese to dump product in the United States. 

That’s a really weird value proposition. And then third is money. People like to talk about rare earths, and they say that Greenland has loads. Well, First of all, no one has, prospected functionally in Greenland yet. So anyone who says they’ve got a lot is just making shit up. 

Second, again, 80% of Greenland is under an ice cap, not a glacier, an ice cap. And even if the most extreme version of global warming happens, you will not be able to meaningfully operate in that zone this century. So you might be able to poke some things on the side that is fair. But again, rare earths aren’t rare. They are byproducts of other mining. It’s not like you can go sink a single shaft to the ground and start pulling up your lanthanides or whatever else you want. No no no no no no no no no no. You need a massive complex to process whatever else is there bauxite, copper, silver, whatever. And because this is a country country with under 100,000 people and none of them live in the places that are probably mineral rich. 

Wow. I’m really getting covered here. You’re now talking about either building $1 trillion of infrastructure just to process metals that you can get somewhere else at a 10th the cost, or shipping all the aura, which would mean a mammoth piece of infrastructure to to handle that kind of cargo. There’s nothing about this that is cost effective. 

And then there’s the issue of what we’d be able to get that we don’t need to have, because Denmark is such a firm ally, they allow us to do whatever we want in Greenland pretty much whenever we want. During the Cold War, we had a few dozen, maybe about 30 or 40 facilities there. 

We have slimmed that down to one, just the station at through. They have made it very clear in Trump two that if we want to go back and reopen any of those facilities or build new ones, they’re happy to help. They’re happy to help pay for it. So there is nothing that we would get from direct control that we don’t already have, except for the headache of managing a remote territory that someone else is already managing better. 

All it would do is wreck the United States’s alliance with the country that argue, has been the most loyal and enthusiastic ally we have ever had. Denmark isn’t like the United Kingdom or France, where they have delusions of their own strength. It isn’t like Australia, where it’s kind of remote. This is a country that’s in the heart of where the North Sea meets the Baltic Sea, and has been the plug that has kept the Russians from having a functional navy for decades. And every time we have called upon them, they have answered, you wreck that relationship. 

And it’s difficult to imagine that we have any alliances where we would still be seen as a trusted partner. And then you’re talking about the U.S. going that alone and having to do everything on the global scale by itself, and large scale excision of American power from Europe. And if you know your history, the last couple of times we decided we didn’t want to work with Europe. 

We ended up going back with several hundred thousand men, a lot of whom didn’t come home. So no, not worth it.