Perception Over Fact 20260603

Perception Over Fact: Iran as the Savior of Beirut

by with No Comment Behavioral SentimentCommoditiesExclusive ContentFeatured HighlightsIndiaIra SlomowitzRisk ManagementUncategorizedWorld

Trump Policy and The Art of a Middle Eastern Deal: Israel, Iran and Lebanon

Opinion: The following article is commentary and its views are solely those of the author. This article was first published the 2nd of June via The Angry Demagogue.

Although it is difficult to see where the negotiations between Iran and the United States are going – if anywhere – over the last 24 hours the United States has made Iran the “savior” of Beirut. Against American policy of creating a civil and unified Lebanon at peace with its neighbors, the Trump Administration has told the Lebanese government and people that Iran still controls what happens in Lebanon.

Perception Over Fact 20260603

Perception over Fact: Iran as the Savior of Beirut

Even if this was not the case, in the art of the Middle Eastern deal, perception is more important than fact. Whether the Trump Administration actually twisted Israel’s arm due to Iran’s demands or not, the fact that Israel has agreed not to bomb the Dahiya section of Beirut after announcing that they would gives a message to the Lebanese people and government that Iran still calls the shots in Lebanon and not to rush to support those who wish to disarm or dismantle Hezbollah since you will be on the losing side.

Lebanon has been embroiled in civil wars since its inception. Beirut, the “Paris of the Middle East” has never known quiet times although that did not stop the partying (sort of like Paris itself today) and Iran’s involvement, much like Syria’s and the PLO’s before has not helped. Before the PLO inspired civil war in the mid 1970’s, after King Hussein threw them out of Jordan, the civil wars were about Lebanon itself. The French thought they created a formula for the creation of a semi-western state by dividing up the power centers amongst the religious and ethnic groups – Maronite-Christians got the Presidency, the Sunnis the Prime Minister-ship, the Shiites the speaker of the Parliament. The Druze historically were appointed Chief of the General Staff of the army.

This formula was, as can be imagined, not one for the free exchange of ideas but caused a rush to create power centers and led to conflict, civil and military. But it was all internal. Once the PLO and Yassir Arafat came, Israel became a factor in the civil war since Israel had to cross the border to stop the PLO from its numerous cross border terrorist attacks. After the First Lebanon War and the forced exit of the PLO, Iran created Hezbollah with the sole aim of using it, in the future, to destroy Israel. Therefore, from the late 1970’s until today, the Lebanese state has been embroiled, often against its will, in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

The goal of the Trump Administration’s negotiations in Washington between Israel and the Lebanese government is to break Iran’s stranglehold over Lebanese internal and external policy and allow it to either establish diplomatic relations with Israel or at least to put the two countries in the situation they were in before the late 1970’s – and that was a quiet, irrelevant border for both countries.

The real or even perceived notion that Beirut was “saved” from Israeli bombing by Iran’s demands has set back that goal and given Hezbollah and hence Iran, veto power over Lebanese government policy. The correct answer to Iran after their demands were made tying Lebanon to the cease fire was that Lebanon is none of your business and if your proxy decided to join your war then they will have to take responsibility for it. The time for “protecting” Lebanon was when you ordered Hezbollah to come to your aid and attack Israel’s north. The result of that – the administration needs to tell both Iran and the Lebanese government and people, is the loss of Lebanese sovereign territory to Israel and the destruction of Shiite villages in the south of the country. A further price is the destruction of the Beirut neighborhood in which Hezbollah has command and control facilities as well as underground arms depots.

Iran cannot be seen to be the savior of Beirut and Lebanon but the cause of its troubles. No amount of rhetoric to the contrary will prove to the Lebanese government and people what they see on the ground now – only Iran has the power to stop Israel’s bombing of their country. The Administration has set back its goals in Lebanon without aiding its war effort in Iran. The constant Iranian threat to make the war regional is coming true since the Administration is not taking seriously Iranian deal-making methods.

As we wrote two months ago in The Art of the (Middle Eastern) Deal” – “Each ‘concession’ by Iran will have to be paid for twice or three times – once upon agreement and then again before numerous times before implementation”. Iran agreed to open the Straits and then reneged and the US is negotiation for that again – AFTER Iran received the much needed cease fire.

Now, after the administration denied linkage to Lebanon, Iran is again demanding that linkage – not in order to open the Straits, but just to continue negotiations. This pushes both American interests to the back burner – the opening of the Straits of Hormuz and the normalization of Lebanon as a country free from Iranian influence. And the “concession” that Iran is giving for this is just a continuation of the negotiations that have been going on for over two months. In other words, like most negotiations in the middle east that are supposed to lead to “peace” – this too is moving backwards.

President Trump has asked for patience and has insisted that the United States will never accept a bad deal – and I am willing to be patient and believe that. But what if the goal of the Iranian government is not a deal at all but the ability to re-set their genocidal triad or missiles, proxies and nuclear weapons? These negotiations have given them time to dig out their underground missile cities, to keep their enriched uranium hidden and now to revive their flailing major proxy – Hezbollah. In the end, as the President said, it will be good, but by allowing Iran to take the initiative he is making it harder to get to that “good”.

What we have now is a continuation of American-Iranian negotiations where a concession was given to Iran and they are no closer to reaching an agreement. Iran is now perceived as the power to be reckoned with in Lebanon and Israel is put on a level with Hezbollah. Iran and the United States are now equals in this negotiation, something that was not the case when they started. While it might in fact end well, the journey is now a longer and more difficult one. The perception given by the last 24 hours that Iran controls Lebanon, is now the “fact” that the Middle East “knows”.

Disclaimer: the views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of the author, and not necessarily the opinions reflected by angrymetatraders.com or its associated parties.

Follow Ira Slomowitz via The Angry Demagogue on Substack https://iraslomowitz.substack.com/

Copy and paste the text from AMT that you want to share

Markets Say 20260407

What Do the Markets Say?

by with No Comment AssetsBehavioral SentimentCentral BanksEquitiesExclusive ContentFeatured HighlightsFederal Reserve, Interest RatesFinancial InstitutionsInvestingIra SlomowitzRisk ManagementWorld

Ambivalence Rules the Day

Opinion: The following article is commentary and its views are solely those of the author. This article was first published the 7th of April via The Angry Demagogue.

There is nothing we capitalists like saying more than “the markets say….”. What we mean is that the amorphous group of individuals and institutions that together form some sort of consensus as to the value of “things” taking everything known by the individuals involved into consideration. Since no one can know everything, the idea is that the market represents the sum of knowledge of everyone who has money to invest – or, as we like to say, “skin in the game”.

Markets Say 20260407

Below is a graph from the start of the war until April 2, of oil, gold, 10-Year U.S Treasury yields, American and European stocks. Each should tell us something and in general all together they should be saying the same thing. However – that is not the case here considering we are in the midst of a major Middle Eastern war, with China and Russia watching with interest and Western Europe squirming with unease.

Asset Prices 20260407

Normalized at 100 via ChatGPT as source.

Those items that signify a flight to safety are the price of gold and the U.S Treasury yields, while those that signify a faith in the future of the economies are the index levels of the U.S and European stocks. A commodity that is directly affected, oil in this case, is expected to rise and it has, by over 50% since the start of the war.

While one would expect the price of U.S Treasuries to rise considerably as it is considered a “safe haven” by investors, it has risen just 4% as yields dropped from 4.31% to 4.13% (with bonds, prices and yields moving inversely. A rise in bond price is a decline is their yield – meaning they earn less for the bondholder). Gold, the other safe haven, though has dropped by nearly 12% since the start of the war. True enough, the price of gold has skyrocketed over the past year, but still while there is a reason why gold might underperform U.S Treasuries, it is odd that it has underperformed stocks on both sides of the Atlantic, in spite of the 50% increase in the price of oil – forcing up energy prices for industry. Stocks in the U.S have dropped by just 4.95% while in Europe the decline is just 5.8%. Neither number is one an investor wants to see in just six weeks, but all things considered the war has not caused a lack of confidence in the economies of the EU or the U.S.

People might claim that gold has lost its safe haven luster over the years, but that is not the belief of governments as India and China have been buyers of vast stores of gold and France decided to repatriate all of their gold reserves. They still see it as necessary.

So, what are the markets telling us about this war and the future of domestic and global economies? Regarding Iran, the supposed victors in this “quagmire”, the Iranian Rial has dropped 96.8% in 2026 and has moved from 0.00002378 to the dollar to an incredible 0.00000076 (that means that 1 million Iranian Rial equals 76 cents) the market speaks in one voice – no confidence.

Regarding the rest of the world the markets are not really telling us much of anything because there has not been a rush to safe havens as usually happens in wars and happened during Covid, nor has there been supreme confidence. The markets are, shall we say, ambivalent.

That volatility is high and that they move drastically on each Trumpian proclamation is more a sign that the algorithms that control the very short term market trends are mostly chasing the same thing. When X happens, sell Y is a race to the bottom by unthinking and unsophisticated (in spite of AI) analysis until that race causes the “when Y hits a certain price, buy it” or “when Z happens then buy A” algorithms kick in. After a few days or weeks, we can start to see trends as long as we ignore the record highs or lows. However, there is nothing other than “wait and see” ambivalence in the current market data.

While this does not necessarily mean that the “markets” are in support of the war, but neither does it see a debacle of any sort. The Libyan bombing campaign of 2011 lasted seven months with no real Western interests involved and the Kosovo ariel campaign of 1999 lasted around 3 months and involved humanitarian but not economic interests. The 6 weeks of this war, so far, is not at a level of “quagmire” for the markets.

If the markets are telling us anything now it is that while oil may stay high for awhile, the world is not heading south due to the war. This can change– for good or bad – but the markets themselves are not currently taking a stand either way. They are not telling us we are in for a rough ride. While we believe that this war will reshape global politics and alliances and create an economic boon for the victors, no one can be sure who will end up on top and who will suffer once the war winds down.

The defeatists around the western world could do worse than listen to what the markets are not telling us.

Disclaimer: the views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of the author, and not necessarily the opinions reflected by angrymetatraders.com or its associated parties.

You can follow Ira Slomowitz via The Angry Demagogue on Substack https://iraslomowitz.substack.com/

Copy and paste the text from AMT that you want to share

Iran What Losing Looks Like 20260323

Iran: What Losing Looks Like

by with No Comment AssetsExclusive ContentFeatured HighlightsIra SlomowitzRisk ManagementWorld

Who is Losing Militarily, Technologically, Economically and Diplomatically?

Opinion: The following article is commentary and its views are solely those of the author. This article was first published the 20th of March via The Angry Demagogue.

It is difficult for many to admit that the US and Israel are winning the war and that conquering a country the size of France, Germany, UK, Netherlands and Spain together with only air power does not take a day or two. However, by any objective (meaning without thinking that all Trump/Bibi/Hegseth, etc. bad) standard, the allied coalition is systematically destroying the military industrial complex that is the Islamic Republic of Iran (what it is not is a State dedicated to the good of its citizens). People forget that the American air campaign in Gulf War 1 was 38 days. It started on January 17, 1991 and only by February 24 did the generals feel that they could invade and take Kuwait.

Iran What Losing Looks Like 20260323

The air campaign then poured over 88,000 tons of bombs in approximately 100,000 sorties. And this to capture a country a bit smaller than New Jersey.

As we finish the third week of this war we can assess who is winning and who is not. We have spent this past week discussing what it means to be victorious in this war (The Economy and The Military) and to state unequivocally that victory is the moral choice no matter the price of oil. That being said, the price of oil is rising and hit $120 a barrel before dropping. Economists see $138 barrel as the price that could send the US into a recession. So far, the US economy is holding firm. The S&P 500 closed on the Friday before the war at 6740 and yesterday’s close was 6624 – a drop of about 1.7% – not the panic that the front pages would have us think. The Eurostoxx 50 is actually up slightly from 5719 to 5736.

The Federal Reserve did not cut rates, signifying that they don’t need to prop up the economy and risk inflation as they do when they fear a collapse.

The economies of the West seem strong in spite of (or because of?) the war which should end with the cessation of the 47 year of Islamic Republic price premium. The Russian and Chinese economies meanwhile will be under stress for quite some time. While China will have to wonder about its oil supply, Russia understands that $100 a barrel oil will encourage increased US production (and now Russian and Chinese free Venezuelan?) that will hurt them when oil prices go back to normal levels. As we will now discuss, Chinese and Russian arms deals might start to go south, too.

Technologically, this war is a further test of American and Israeli technology and abilities, and they have passed with flying colors. The American and Israeli missile and drone defense systems are outperforming what they did less than a year ago in the “12 Day War” and the U.S Navy is untouchable. The Gulf States are also fairing better than expected although due to the short distance and the lack of experience, they are getting hit more than Israel is. To top it off, the Russians have forced Ukraine to become global leaders in the defense against drones and there are now 2,000 Ukrainian anti-drone personnel in the Gulf States.

But is the air-forces that are performing so well, that one would think that the Iranians did not invest in the most advanced Russian and Chinese air-defense systems over the past few years. The S-300 or S-400 advanced Russian systems or the Chinese HQ-9B long range surface to air missile and the JY-26 (alleged) anti-stealth radar, are performing so poorly, the Chinese themselves must be hoping it is a personnel issue and not a technological one.

Speaking of personnel, this war has shown that pilot skill still matters. It is the bravery, daring and success of American and Israeli aviators that matters as much as the technology. Just look at the Gulf countries who fear sending their combined force of around 400 F-15’s and French Rafale fighters into the air.

The Russian air force (and army) has already shown it is lacking the skill to compete with even poorly trained Ukrainian pilots, let alone with American or Israeli aviators. The Chinese too, must be wondering if their air force, made up of untested, pilots from one-child families will brave the fire coming from Taiwan as well as the American and Japanese navies in order to complete their missions.

Technology is great – especially if it works as advertised, but if the “operators” are inferior, even great technology will not be up to par. No one yet has been able to match American and Israeli personnel, in the air or on the ground.

Which brings us to that annoying wild-card, the Straits of Hormuz. While the Iranians have not succeeded in closing the straits they are scaring off shipping to an extent that it is a concern not only for the present but for the future. By using this tool, by playing this card, if you will, Iran has forced the United States to make the security of the Straits a war aim. The success of the U.S operation in the Straits will turn it from an international waterway under the veto power of Iran to a U.S controlled and protected gateway from the Persian Gulf. In times of war with China the U.S Navy will be able to turn it into a Chinese energy chokepoint. If the U.S was not there prior to the Iranian gamble, they will be there now.

As for pure military, Iran is losing as no one has lost before. The combined forces have destroyed nearly all their production capabilities for military hardware, have destroyed air defenses, command and control centers, leadership on multiple levels and most of their navy. We don’t need much more to declare Iran the military loser.

Diplomatically, things are not as they appear. While no western European countries support the fighting or even the aims of the war, the Gulf States, India and others are quietly forming an unofficial coalition against regional terror. As Europe tries to figure out how to pacify its growing radical Moslem population, other counties, including Moslem ones, are finally realizing that terror against Israel and Jews slowly but surely works its way back to them. For fanatics, no one is religiously or ideologically pure enough, even if you are descended from Mohammed.

Western Europe is a clear diplomatic loser in this war as President Trump is the last person who will forgive their teachery and allow them to share in the spoils of this war. Their role in the Middle East and in global politics generally is done. Their ability to use their victory in WWI to determine and influence events around the world is finished even though they have now backtracked and agreed to help on the Straits of Hormuz issue.

Regarding China, they have now abandoned one of their main allies and the country they have depended on to provide them not only oil but a strong military presence in the Middle East. The war was clearly coming and just as the United States sent carrier groups to protect its and its allies’ interests, so too, could have China. They could have sent naval vessels to help defend Iran – or at least deter the United States but did not, either because they don’t have the ability to do it or they don’t have the will. In either case, China is a diplomatic loser in this war.

Russia is also losing the diplomatic game as Ukraine becomes closer to the Gulf states and Israel and America are neutering their best technology. Regarding Israel’s recent sinking of Iranian naval ships in the Caspian Sea, reports are coming out that they were laden with Russian military aid. Russia, like China, has not raised a finger to help their main Mideast ally, making it hard for them to claim the loyalty of other purported allies.

And Israel? Israel seems always to be a diplomatic loser, war or peace. However, this war has strengthened the bonds between the American and Israeli military in ways that no one could have foreseen just months ago. The cooperation and trust between the two militaries is beyond anything America has had since its partnership with the UK in WWII. Western Europe’s continued irrelevance on the global scene has lightened the pain the Israeli public feels for western Europe’s betrayal.

India on the other hand has tightened its ties with Israel as Prime Minister Modi’s pre-war trip to the country showed. As for the Gulf Countries, the UAE seems to be interested in strengthening its Israeli ties while Qatar does not. While Qatar is angry at Iran for their attacks it is not clear that this will lead them to abandon their goals of Islamicizing the West and ridding the world of Israel. Saudi Arabia is hard to call. We don’t expect any diplomatic breakthroughs especially if the Islamic Republic actually falls.

Israel we can say is neither a winner nor a loser, yet, in the diplomatic arena – which, considering the beating Israel gets on the world stage, might be called a win but most certainly is not a loss.

The United States can hardly be considered a diplomatic loser in this war as they are the only major power to be able to come to the aid of allies when U.S interests are also involved. The tough talk out of western Europe is a very small thorn in the side of the United States.

To summarize, Iran is the big loser of course as their support comes from a neutered Russia, an apathetic China and a global progressive left that has no power to influence, let alone determine events. Iran’s main allies have been proven ineffectual at best, uninterested at worst and their “brand” has been diminished no matter what else happens in the war.

The only part of the war that the United States and Israel can be said to be losing is the news and propaganda (but I repeat myself) war.

For the things that count though, one thing is certain – the United States and Israel are not the losers.

Disclaimer: the views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of the author, and not necessarily the opinions reflected by angrymetatraders.com or its associated parties.

You can follow Ira Slomowitz via The Angry Demagogue on Substack https://iraslomowitz.substack.com/

Copy and paste the text from AMT that you want to share

Iran: What Victory Looks Like Part 2 - The Military

Iran: What Victory Looks Like, Part 2 – The Military

by with No Comment AssetsBehavioral SentimentBusinessCommoditiesExclusive ContentFeatured HighlightsFinancial InstitutionsIra SlomowitzRisk ManagementWorld

Missiles, Drones, the Straits and Regime Change

Opinion: The following article is commentary and its views are solely those of the author. This article was first published the 17th of March via The Angry Demagogue.

In a recent X post, Edward Luttwak, the elder statesmen amongst strategists and one who we ignore at our own peril, stated that “The regime is impotent viz the U.S but all-powerful against its own people. So, regime change with bombs may fail but without bombs it might last for ever.” In other words, American and Israeli bombing is a necessary, but not sufficient condition for the overthrow of the Islamic Republic. Luttwak also made it clear that the Iranian people cannot overthrow the regime without native military support.

Iran: What Victory Looks Like Part 2 - The Military

Not only will bombing not be sufficient to overthrow the regime, but American and Israeli commandos combined with Mossad and CIA operations will not be enough because for the Islamic Republic, internal, Iranian opponents of the regime are a bigger religious and ideological threat than Americans, Israelis or Sunni Arabs and they will always have enough Kalashnikovs and machine guns to kill 30,000 Iranians a night.

But regime change is not the only path to military victory. The mistaken views of the war when the opponents are “shocked”, Casablanca style, when they realize that wars are difficult and unpredictable and come with speed bumps, unexpected ups as well as downs and that not everything is in your control.

The first path to victory is one that is occurring now. That is the destruction of the military and command and control assets of the Islamic Republic. That focuses as we know, on the Revolutionary Guards (IRGC) and the “Basaj” – essentially the IRGC’s domestic militia who are responsible for keeping Iranian citizens in line and are, for the most part, ideological hardheads. With other types of dictatorships, the embarrassing way their military has handled Israeli and American attacks past and present would have been enough to topple them. However, with Shiite fanatics who know no borders (morally or geographically) and whose main enemies are domestic, that is not the case – and no one expected that to be the case.

The attacks must continue until either the regime changes or until their military-industrial infrastructure is destroyed. This means its drone and missile production, its naval forces, air-defenses and underground missile storage and nuclear facilities must be done away with. It does not mean the nearly impossible attempt to secure enriched uranium. Regime change can lead to cease fire and negotiations but without regime change the attacks must continue until the mission is completed.

The second path to victory is the opening and complete control of the Strait of Hormuz. While there still are ships that make it through, this is the one thing that the regime still holds over the United States and the world. The missiles they send to Israel and the gulf will be degraded enough if the bombings continue, but the Western world cannot allow a vicious, cruel dictatorship to control any waterway. Freedom of navigation is one of the key reasons why Taiwan is so important (which Japan knows well – making us wonder why it has not sent ships to help with the Straits) and a key reason this war must be fought. We wrote the other day about the price premium that the Islamic Republic holds over the world (and there was a Jerusalem Post article quoting Peter Navarro, head of the White House Office of Trade and Manufacturing state that the price premium is between $5-15 a barrel – we think that is understated). The Islamic Republic must be denied this ability to blackmail the world.

Of course, it seems that Western Europe is happier with the Iranian regime not losing, than with the American (or Israeli) government winning, but that is something to be dealt with later

The third thing that will bring a military victory is of course, regime change. First, the presence of a new leader on Iranian soil must be attained. This can either be the Shah’s son, Reza Pahlavi, who has been encouraging his countrymen to revolt and therefore needs to show real leadership by making his way home, or someone, possibly a senior military figure, who is in Iran now. Pahlavi is the natural choice, but he must take some risks and show he has the pull and prestige with at least part of the military in order to be able to accomplish the mission of overturning the regime.

In order for that to happen, circumstances must be created where a few divisions of the regular army can protect Pahlavi as he enters the country and he can lead the people to revolt. Once a few divisions defect and with American and Israeli air-power, they can liberate territory, further army divisions will probably join in – assuming they see a path to victory. A revolution need not happen overnight but can come with the army moving across the country and the defeat or defection of some in the IRGC. A few million in Swiss or Dubai bank accounts will also encourage defection.

Without a leader and an organized armed force, the regime just needs small weapons fire to put down any citizen revolt – and they will.

Military victory can come either with the destruction of the drone/missile capabilities and stockpiles along with the forced re-opening of the Strait of Hormuz or with regime change. If the former two, then the Iranian people will continue to suffer, but the Persian Gulf countries, Israel, the United States and the rest of the free world will not. If the latter, then everyone except China and Russia will be winners.

Let us not forget what everyone has been saying since day 1 – that only the Iranians can overthrow the government and that will only be done if the regular army decides to throw itself to the side of the people. The United States and Israel can only create the necessary (but not sufficient) conditions for this to happen. Without regime change, but with the opening and complete control of the Straits, the destruction of the regime’s naval, air defense, missile and drone forces and production, along with the elimination of senior Basaj and IRGC commanders, will still constitute a satisfactory military victory.

Disclaimer: the views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of the author, and not necessarily the opinions reflected by angrymetatraders.com or its associated parties.

You can follow Ira Slomowitz via The Angry Demagogue on Substack https://iraslomowitz.substack.com/

Copy and paste the text from AMT that you want to share

Iran Pt One 20260316

Iran: What Victory Looks Like, Part 1 – The Economy

by with No Comment AssetsBehavioral SentimentExclusive ContentFeatured HighlightsIra SlomowitzRisk ManagementUncategorizedWorld

Ridding the World of the Islamic Republic Price Premium

Opinion: The following article is commentary and its views are solely those of the author. This article was first published the 16th of March via The Angry Demagogue.

There has been much chatter about what “victory” over the Islamic Republic means and it is mostly an attempt to deny the very concept of victory. We wrote about “The End of Defeatism and a Return to Victory” last week where we criticized the whole aversion to victory in Western society. The naysayers don’t like to admit that an anti-Western regime can be all that bad, and therefore endless diplomacy needs to be a goal until the final surrender of the West. They don’t really care about the cost of gasoline in the United States – they actually want it to rise – but as long as it was brought up, let us examine in part, the cost of the Islamic regime and what “economic victory” will look like.

Iran Pt One 20260316

Victory in WWII meant not only the defeat of the evil that was Nazi Germany, but it also meant the resurgence of Europe as an economically successful continent. The Marshall Plan that was the crux of the European revival was as much a part of the Allied (sans the Soviets) victory as the surrender signed by German generals.

What is “economic victory” in this war? The media is all over the costs of the war, but no one has examined the costs of allowing the Islamic Republic to continue as it is. No one has examined the cost that the mere existence of the Islamic Republic (as opposed to non-Islamic Iran) creates for the world in general and the United States in particular.

Let’s start first with the most talked about and panic-ridden event and that is the Strait of Hormuz, the gateway to the Persian Gulf and a chokepoint in international shipping to and from that region. It is the gateway to much of the oil shipped to the world, but also fertilizers and other products. The Wall Street Journal news section in another ignorant headline it considered a “scoop”, wrote that President Trump was told that the Straits might be closed in case of war and he attacked anyway. I am not sure there is a knowledgeable military or diplomatic figure or layman in the world who didn’t consider that an option, but to the WSJ news editors it was the surprise of the century.

As Condoleezza Rice said on the recent episode of Hoover Institutions “Goodfellows” a 50 cent rise in gasoline prices for a few weeks is not a reason not to attack a country who has been at war with you for 47 years. But before we even get to that point, has anyone analyzed the cost of giving Iran a veto over who gets to ship through those straits?

If we look at the insurance rates for shipping through the Strait of Hormuz from Lloyds of London we will get a first hint. From 1970-1979 (before the Islamic Republic) the typical premium was 0.01-0.05%. Once Khomeini took power the rates were 0.05-0.2%. During the Iran-Iraq war when there were the “tanker wars” (between 1984-7) those rates jumped to around 5% with a peak of 7.5%. The post Iran-Iraq and Gulf war period of 2004-19 ranged from .0.05-0.25% – well above the pre-Islamic Republic days.

As for absolute figures, a tanker valued at $200m with a rate of 0.01% (pre-Islamic Republic) cost $20,000 and .05% will cost $100,000. The cost at 0.5% is $1million. So, the pre-Islamic republic rate for a $200m tanker ranged from $20,000-$100,000 while the absolute rate at the lowest level since the Islamic Republic came into existence ranged from $100,000-$400,000 – during the best of times. This does not take into consideration the war premium for the many years Iran threatened and even hit tankers even without the excuse of American or Israeli bombing. The average “war premium” from 1979-2020 was 0.83% or $1.66 million for a $200 million vessel.

We don’t have the wherewithal to continue this analysis, but this is exactly the type of article that we used to expect from the pre-ideological WSJ (or even NY Times) news sections. Maybe some economist or even the WSJ editorial page can start to do the heavy lifting and tell us how much the Islamic Republic of Iran has added to the gasoline bill of the average American even during non-war periods.

In economic terms – victory means a eliminating the price premium for shipping energy and global trade in general brought on by the very existence of the Islamic Republic. We will know victory is here when there is a return to the insurance premiums of the pre-Islamic Republic days and when the price of oil, due to increased supply from a non-terrorist Iran reaches the levels it is capable of. A 50 cent or even a 1 dollar rise in gas prices for a month will be followed by $2-3 decreases permanently. We won’t reach the 28 cents a gallon I remember from my childhood (actually 27.9 cents), but neither will it be $4.00 (except maybe in California).

This economic victory will reverberate to other theatres. While the Russians might profit from a temporary rise in oil to $100 a barrel, in the medium and long term, if oil drops to $40 a barrel or even less, they will struggle to support the war effort.

The short term costs and dire predictions that the journalists and diplomats have foisted upon us will end up being a drop in the bucket after economic victory is achieved.

Disclaimer: the views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of the author, and not necessarily the opinions reflected by angrymetatraders.com or its associated parties.

You can follow Ira Slomowitz via The Angry Demagogue on Substack https://iraslomowitz.substack.com/ 

Copy and paste the text from AMT that you want to share

Slomowitz 20260307

End of Defeatism and a Return to Victory

by with No Comment AssetsBehavioral SentimentExclusive ContentFeatured HighlightsFinancial InstitutionsIndiaInvestingIra SlomowitzRisk ManagementWorld

The Iran War Brings a new Strategy Against Tyrants

Opinion: The following article is commentary and its views are solely those of the author. This article was first published the 8th of March via The Angry Demagogue.

We are witnessing not the end of some amorphous “rules-based international order”, but the end of defeatism and a return to victory.

The defeatist attitude amongst the talking heads regarding the Iran war stems from an inability to imagine victory. For the West, as a friend pointed out, victory has been absent from the vocabulary of war since the end of WWII. The “there is no military solution to the problem” crowd can’t imagine that force is sometimes not only necessary but is the only way to move forward. Giving up on diplomacy does not mean that force will attain the compromises that diplomacy looks for but rather attain the victory that diplomacy can never gain.

Slomowitz 20260307

This is why the NY Times headline is “In War’s First Week, a Punishing Military Campaign with No Coherent Endgame” while the Wall Street Journal decided that the main story of the day is “Dread and paranoia spread across a 1,000-year-old city” – Teheran. The Financial Times quotes one of America’s foremost defeatists, Richard Haass – “America chose this war — and must now choose how to end it”. These are just small samples of the panic that encrusts the progressive mind when someone stands up to terrorists and tyrants with military force. For the defeatist, the “endgame” can never be victory and the deposing of an illegitimate, tyrannical and genocidal regime.

This is the hope of the tyrants worldwide and they have basically been correct in their assessment of western behavior. The so-called “rules-based international order” is not liberal in any sense of the word but a recipe for the spread of cruelty. This so-called “order” not only tolerated the disorder that tyrants and terrorists have brought for the past 70 years it has funded them, too. In South America, from Maoist terrorists in Peru to the Cuban and Venezuelan kleptocracies, they always knew there would be a chance to “negotiate”. Russia’s Putin was allowed to destroy Chechnya and occupy the Crimea, supported by European thirst for their oil and gas and American desires for a piece of the pie. In the middle east, Yassir Arafat’s Palestinian Authority and later Hamas were given billions of dollars by the United States and Western Europe in spite of their clear and present danger to the West by their spread of terror. Hezbollah and Iran run drugs throughout the world, engage in human trafficking and money laundering all to bring disorder and upset the national governments that support them by purchasing their oil and simply giving them planeloads of cash.

Off ramps are needed when victory is not possible but that is not the case regarding Iran. Imbecilic questions that the press likes to ask like “will you commit ground troops?” trying to trick the leaders of the free countries into showing their hand, are just part of the defeatist culture that has occupied the minds of the chattering classes since the French Revolution. That attitude was fine tuned in Vietnam when defeat was the preferred option and victory deemed immoral. The “end of diplomacy” in this and many other cases is not only the moral option it is the correct strategic option. The WSJ thinks there is no connection between an American victory in this and other theatres and the deterrence of China. The ignorant headline that the WSJ news section has today (one of many since the start of this war) “America’s Military Is Focused on Iran. Its Biggest Challenge Is China” cannot imagine that victory – absolute, total victory – is the greatest diplomatic weapon one can have when dealing with a country the size and strength of China.

A history professor once told me that the reason why diplomats hate war is because it means they have failed but the West has upped the ante on that failure by always insisting on a diplomatic (read: defeatist) end to whatever military action is or is about to take place. Diplomacy might be a necessary end to some conflicts but not to one that one is winning. Any description of the current war as a “quagmire” is bad faith reporting at best, traitorous propaganda at worst.

As we have stated here in the past, predicting President Trump is a fool’s game but it is also a fool’s game to assume this administration thinks in the same defeatist terms that has been the essence of the Western “rules-based international order” for the past half century and more. The same is true regarding Israel’s attitude towards this war. Israel too, has been caught up in the same defeatist attitude as it took the word “victory” out of the goals of the IDF. “Managing crises” is what brought us to October 7 as the IDF General Staff pre-October 7 were mediocrities who gained their positions for political reasons and because they “checked-off” two year stints in various jobs in the military.

Netanyahu was part of that defeatist attitude and that is why people still doubt his ability to see this through to the end. But he now has a military that is determined to win and we all hope he, under encouragement from the US administration, will follow suit. The headline that purposely plays to the anti-semitic woke and Tuckerist followers “Netanyahu Finally Got What He Wanted on Iran by Appealing to an Audience of One” misses the whole point – this is as much Trump’s pressure on Netanyahu as Netanyahu’s on Trump.

This is more than “whatever is good for Trump must be bad”. This is a failure of imagination by a large group of modern day “influencers” (yes, the so-called journalists reporting on the war are no better than Instagram and Tick Tock influencers) who can’t fathom what victory looks like and who believe that a military victory of any sort is one that is, by definition, immoral. The failure of diplomacy is not a failure of morality. Rather it is a realization that the moral way requires military force. The off ramp and the end-game is victory, plain and simple. The fact that some can’t imagine what that looks like does not mean it is not within reach.

The flip side of this of course is that the enemies of the west have an inability to admit defeat. This comes from the fact that the west seems to enjoy surrender in the name of diplomacy so these enemies can always count on the west playing the short game and demanding a return to negotiations. That is why these negotiations failed so miserably. The enemies of the west don’t seem to realize that things have changed and that the Starmer-Macron-Obama defeatist wing of the West is no longer making the decisions.

Contra all the defeatist headlines and analyses, the idea that the off ramp and endgame is now “victory” might actually deter the next tyrant and allow future negotiations to succeed.

Disclaimer: the views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of the author, and not necessarily the opinions reflected by angrymetatraders.com or its associated parties.

You can follow Ira Slomowitz via The Angry Demagogue on Substack https://iraslomowitz.substack.com/ 

Copy and paste the text from AMT that you want to share

Confused Markets 20260217

Market Volatility: Structure, Geo-Politics and Culture

by with No Comment Behavioral SentimentExclusive ContentFeatured HighlightsFinancial InstitutionsInvestingIra SlomowitzMajor Global Equity IndicesRisk ManagementSpeculatorsWorld

Why the (Free) World is so Confused and Depressed

Opinion: The following article is commentary and its views are solely those of the author. This article was first published the 16th of February via The Angry Demagogue.

Having been involved in the capital markets for the better part of the last four decades, I wouldn’t go so far as to say that I have not seen this amount of volatility and uncertainty in the markets, but I will say that this uncertainty and this volatility is different. The differences are important and have to do with the current structure of the markets as well as the geopolitical goals of the various powers and would-be powers. The trading world has changed radically over the last two decades with the advent of algorithmic trading and how they respond to global events as well as the type of money that is coming to dominate the markets.

Confused Markets 20260217

The “type” of money has changed from those who invest in “things” – be they long term value investors like Warren Buffet and Peter Lynch, to those who chase income and dividends and to those who like to follow trends and industries. These investors, different in their own methods and goals had one thing in common – they invested in companies they felt had a future, or in the case of short-sellers (as legitimate as buyers) who thought it didn’t. The few hedge funds that were around four or five decades ago did what the name of the type of fund said – it “hedged” positions and gave up some potential upside in order to cushion losses when markets went south. That changed sometime at the end of the last century when George Soros nearly ended the United Kingdom by mercilessly shorting the Pound.

We are being very general of course and have not spoken about those who invested in bonds of “fixed income” products, corporate, federal or municipal as well as the basic speculator in all sorts of investment products. Nor have we spoken of the crooks who populate any era. We don’t want to give the impression that all was wonderful “then” – this is not a nostalgic look at the recent past but an attempt to understand what people were doing and how they did it, and how things have changed.

We are seeing now a sea change in the way the markets are responding to news and the way money is being invested. We still have the value and income investors; we have the large and small investors doing their best to pick the right stocks and bonds, and some of these investors also use options and futures to enhance and hedge their investments. Investing has become more sophisticated- read more mathematical – and the “basic” investor, large or small has been able to use this sophistication. However, the current hedge fund environment is based on much more than picking the right stocks or bonds and all that goes with it. The current hedge fund system is a group of funds, many of multiple hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars that don’t make investments per se as they try to beat their competitors by the microsecond in order to profit a very small amount on a a large but extremely short term investment (we will speak of the money of unfree countries, below).

As an example, there are dozens of hedge funds who work their “algos” to respond to market news and announcements only to get out of the position within minutes or even seconds. Each algo basically says the same thing – if X happens then buy and if Y happens, sell. The only difference is who will buy or sell quicker and then reverse what they have done. There have always been those with fingers on the button ready to buy or sell but the amounts were smaller and the effect less. Today, the reaction time is so quick that the large firms have their servers in the stock exchange buildings, close to the exchange computers so that they will get their orders in first. Remember, these are electronic so they are going at the speed of light. The difference between 100 feet way and 100 miles should not matter – but it does. We are talking the difference between 0.0000001 seconds for 100 feet and 0.000537 seconds for 100 miles – a time difference that people cannot discern.

This of course is not necessarily a bad thing if the algos themselves were correct for the long or even medium term (or what used to be called the short term – a quarter of a year). But they are programmed for the shortest of short term – what will happen over the next 30 or 40 seconds or maybe a day or two or a week. We see incredible volatility and panic where we should find none. A good or bad jobs report, inflation release or even a Federal Reserve rate cut or hike might have long term consequences but these trades that cause this radical volatility are not concerned with that. The market dropping two or three percent in a matter of minutes does not provide the comfort that investors usually seek. People jump on the bandwagon fearing the worst –when it was just the algos responses to the news rather than intelligent judgement on the news that drove the prices.

We will stop with the details and summarize – a large part of the uncertainty of the markets is structural as technology and the sheer amount of money being traded has surpassed what the markets, as currently structured can stand. As an example, as an employee of the Nasdaq Stock Market in the early 1990’s we were told to prepare for a 1 billion share day. During those days, there were very few shares that traded above $100 as the companies wanted more investors and there were many stock splits (more rare these days). The 1 billion share day in 1995 would have totaled around $40 billion. Today, daily trading activity has passed 15 billion shares and the total money is above $1 trillion.

It is not clear what structural changes need to be made in order to take all of this into consideration, but we do have some ideas (which we won’t bore you with now).

The second major issue that is the cause of the volatility and uncertainty in the markets has to do with what news is “good” and what news is “bad”. Not in the moral sense but in the economic and geo-political sense. What we mean by this is that there does not seem to be a unified view in the Western world where it should be going and because of this, it is not clear what news is in fact good and what is not. Economically it might be easier to figure out but even that has been hard since so many major American cities and so many young people are voting socialist and so much foreign money from non-free countries is flooding the market. News may say one thing for a free market economy and something entirely else for a planned socialist economy. It might mean one thing for investors in New York or Cleveland and something entirely different in China or Qatar.

Therefore, geo-politically the uncertainty is confusing. During the cold war of course we basically understood what moves were positive and which were negative. That is not to say there were no policy arguments but for the most part, the ends were agreed upon. Selling grain to the Soviets may or may not have bettered the Western world but both those like Henry Kissinger who supported it and Senator Scoop Jackson who opposed it argued based on the same goal – what was better for the free world.

This goes beyond who is considered the “enemies of the West” to what is considered the West – or even if it exists! We have always tried to write here from the perspective of what is good for free countries even if many free countries seem to think that Israel, for example, is not a member of that community. The same goes for those who doubt the cause that Ukraine is fighting for, as they support the Putin tyranny in the name of balance or alleged Christian values or whatnot. Interestingly, both sides – the right in the Russia-Ukraine war (and the Tuckeronian Right regarding Israel, too) and the left in the Israel-Islamist war – are willing to forgo freedom for some amorphous, form of justice or truth.

Iran is the perfect example. In every measure of Western values since WWII the Islamic Republic of Iran is an evil country. It denies freedom to its citizens, massacres them, executes women for immodesty and homosexuals for being homosexual. We don’t have to go on regarding the evils of the Islamic Republic of Iran but even with that, there are those in the West who support it. We are not talking about the legitimate policy debate regarding a war with Iran – morally as well as politically – but rather the fact that many just don’t consider that Iran is on the wrong side. Israel as we said is another example, but we can go on and on. Venezuela, Cuba and even China come to mind.

True enough, there were always people in the West that thought the Soviet Union or Maoist China was morally “better” than the United States or Europe, but never did they influence the politics, culture and businesses as the current naysayers do. The markets “understood’ that the Soviet Union was bad and reacted accordingly. The geo-political goals were mostly in sync.

The global markets reflect the geo-politics of the day and “vote” on it in a daily basis. The fact that there is a vast sum of money that influences the markets that are actively opposed to the freedom project – China, Qatar and Russia come to mind – does not help the situation. It is not the “foreign” money that disturbs the markets but rather which foreign money. There is a difference between an investor who is looking for the good company or the safe bond, and one who is looking to use their investment to further a radical Islamist or Chinese Communist agenda. President Trump’s trillion dollars of investments from Qatar and Saudi Arabia and others comes with a price tag he does not usually deal with – the price tag of undermining the market economy that has made him so successful. The proof of “goodwill” in the investments in the United States ought to be shown before that money flows into the economy. They have already contributed to ruining the universities (not that they needed the help) – there is no reason to permit them to ruin America’s great corporations, too.

The markets are crazy due to its structural issues and due to the “uncertainty” that is today’s world. Sadly, that uncertainty is not just uncertainty about what will happen, but uncertainty about what is good or bad (news). This goes beyond unity and “can’t we just get along?” and gets to the heart of why we are living today in the same culture. We say culture instead of country or city since that culture is the one that “got us here” as basketball or football coaches like to say.

The lack of agreement as to what matters most has affected the markets more than we think, and it all has contributed to the depression that so many in the free world are feeling at the moment.

Disclaimer: the views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of the author, and not necessarily the opinions reflected by angrymetatraders.com or its associated parties.

You can follow Ira Slomowitz via The Angry Demagogue on Substack https://iraslomowitz.substack.com/ 

 

Copy and paste the text from AMT that you want to share

postN75

U.S National Security, Part 3: Don’t Underemphasize Freedom

by with No Comment AMT MarketsBehavioral SentimentFeatured Highlights

U.S National Security, Part 3: Don't Underemphasize Freedom

Opinion: The following article is commentary and its views are solely those of the author. This article was first published the 30th of December via The Angry Demagogue.

 
postN75

Conclusion

The post-Cold War world that the Strategy Paper tries to figure out is much more than the collapse of the Soviet Union and the rise of China. One of the main goals of the Trump administration is to turn the clock back on “globalization”, be it via tariffs, other economic ways or even, military means.

While the world is panicking over AI’s destruction of good white collar jobs, it has, paradoxically, created a world where the auto industry can’t find enough qualified mechanics at nice six figure salaries. Not even ten years ago the journalists were haranguing out of work blue collar workers with “go learn to code”, the beer guzzling crew can now tell the tearful journalists and Hollywood “writers” who can’t write better than AI to “go learn how to weld” (or at least handle a screwdriver). But the strategic issues we are facing go beyond manufacturing jobs.

The challenge to the United States and to other free countries is how to handle a new reality where massive debt threatens the diminution, if not the destruction, of the life style we have all come to take for granted and where revanchist regimes don’t quite understand that their power and “prestige” is a result of what has been built in those free countries they want to replace. China, like Russia, Iran, Turkey, Qatar and the non-state actors like Hamas, Hezbollah, the Moslem Brotherhood and others don’t quite understand that while they can use, and even sometimes improve on what freedom has provided them, they will stagnate once they attain their goal of defeating and destroying the free world.

As advanced as China becomes and even if it flies to the moon, overtakes the United States in AI and quantum computing and manages to make the United States into only the breadbasket of the world, they will stagnate as only free markets and free people can move the world to the next step. Growth can only be accomplished by free people. True enough, the economy often grows in ways that we don’t always like, the alternative is stagnation and a return to the pre-scientific age. For all the talk of “new man” and “progress” and everything else that the Soviet Union strived to create, they produced no medicines, no medical devices and no medical treatments.

Therefore, the defeat of the revanchist world and the preservation of freedom needs to be the paramount goal of American foreign policy. This does not mean the creation of democracies where none have ever existed and it does not mean sending troops in every time a political prisoner is arrested or even a plan to militarily defeat the CCP, but it does mean always supporting free countries against the unfree even when the United States is also “friends” with the unfree one.

This means that it will also give free countries leeway when their interests do not align perfectly with America’s (non-core) interests. America as sole protector of the free world has leverage that America as midwife to a set of regional alliances does not. This is a choice that America can make and a correct reading of the Strategy Paper tells us that the United States no longer wants to or can be the main power in every region in the world. This means that there needs to be a change in attitude in America so that it cannot force its will on its allies just because there is another contract to be had or another “cause” that has caught the eye of the country’s establishment.

Encouraging regional alliances of free countries such as the new Eastern-Med Alliance that has already been established between Greece, Cyprus and Israel is a prime example. In addition to the economic cooperation there has been joint defense training and there are agreements that will lead to a defense cooperation pact if not a NATO-like security treaty. Turkey is the common competitor, or enemy, of these three countries. Turkey claims certain Greek islands, occupies parts of Cyprus and has designs on Israel as it strives to be the Islamic “liberator” of Jerusalem. There are gas exploration agreements and cooperation and there would have been a pipeline to Europe if the Biden administration had not stopped it (while they approved the Russian-German pipeline).

Italy ought to be a natural member of the East-Med Alliance and maybe the dissolution of NATO will make them realize that they have more in common with Israel and Greece than they think they do. If Italy were to join then that would create a powerful naval and air deterrence of free countries against aggressors in the eastern Mediterranean. The addition of Malta, a small but strategically important country south of Sicily would provide naval bases that could control the sea lanes between north Africa and Europe helping to stem illegal migration and Turkish attempts to control those same lanes. Malta also brings with it a history of defeating Suleiman the Magnificent in a four month siege when the Ottomans tried to conquer this important island. As we stated before, the United States as a “midwife” to alliances cannot instruct countries on their own national interests. That means that allies of the United States will clash but America must always come down on the side of the free countries and not the revanchist power – in this case, Turkey.

There are of course other regional alliances that can come into being and a remake of the post-WWII world is in order. The end of the cold war created economic booms across the globe raising hundreds of millions of people out of poverty, but recent decades have seen an increase in terror and tyranny and that itself needs to be dealt with. If not by the United States alone then by the US along with the regional alliances that the Strategy Paper has highlighted and we have demarcated (partially) here. But concepts like “territorial integrity” (see Syria, Somalia and the rest of Africa) and “sovereignty” have lost their moral imperative as they are used as excuses by tyrants (and their enablers at the UN) to further their cruelty. One of the faults of the old “liberal international order” has been allowing tyrannies the same rights and respect as free countries. During the Cold War, when nuclear war loomed, this might have made sense but after the fall of the Soviet Union these “principles” have created more harm than good.

In the National Security Strategy of the administration, the words “free” and “freedom” appear twenty times, but never in the context of an alliance of free countries. While it speaks of freedom of religion and speech and free markets it never speaks of the need to put allies that are free ahead of friends that are not free. Allies are those countries that share values and will come to your aid because of that. Friends, in international affairs, are those that look to short-term gain and have no desire to further your values or interests. There is no reason that the United States, in its current fiscal condition needs to fight the fight of freedom around the world alone, but neither can it abandon that fight in the pursuit of short-term contracts or frivolous causes.

Disclaimer: the views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of the author, and not necessarily the opinions reflected by angrymetatraders.com or its associated parties.

You can follow Ira Slomowitz via The Angry Demagogue on Substack https://iraslomowitz.substack.com/ 

postN73

U.S National Security, Part 2: Regional Alliances – Europe

by with No Comment Behavioral SentimentFeatured HighlightsIndia

U.S National Security, Part 2: Regional Alliances - Europe

Opinion: The following article is commentary and its views are solely those of the author. This article was first published the 25th of December via The Angry Demagogue.

postN73

As we continue our tour of the administration’s National Security Strategy we will stay with “part III: What Are America’s Available Means to Get What We Want?” and move to the sixth bullet point: “A broad network of alliances, with treaty allies and partners in the world’s most strategically important regions” and work through the important regions that the strategy documents – Asia, Europe, the Mideast and Africa. For good or for bad we will need to split these regions up since the key point is forming coalitions that can handle their actual region. Sweden can’t be part of a coalition to protect Italy’s interests in the Mediterranean and Japan won’t be protecting Singapore.

Some U.S allied countries, like Australia, Israel and India will be involved in multiple regions helping lead alliances in all areas important to them. With that in mind we will point out the first mistake of the discussion on regions and that is Europe. We will suggest something here that would not usually come from the mouth of a hawk and pessimist and that is that NATO has no real mission and needs to be replaced by a series of alliances that make more sense. While the fear during the Cold War was a Warsaw Pact ground invasion into Germany and beyond which would have required the totality of American and European forces, Europe now is facing a Russia that could not conquer Ukraine in nearly four years of war. That is not to say that Russia is not to be feared only that each part of Europe needs to ally to face a Russian onslaught in its own theatre.

Italy is not going to send troops to Sweden to prevent an attack and Norway won’t be helping Greece in any fight. Turkey is a country that other NATO countries fear more than trust, especially regarding Russia.

In short, NATO needs to be broken up into different alliances where each country will be allied with countries whose fall would affect its national security. The United States can either be a signatory to these alliances or it can decide how involved it wants to get in any conflagration depending on its own interests at that time. It can decide to position ground troops in the countries, supply air cover or, as in the 12-day war between Israel and Iran, help with missile defense and in providing the final blow with weapons only America has. Or – it can decide that it will never participate. One hopes that that won’t happen, but each alliance will need to be ready to fight on its own.

We can include France and the U.K as large countries with advanced armed forces as allies to all of these alliances. France certainly can contribute air power to each of the alliances that are faced against Russia. As for the U.K, it is difficult to know where that country is going but its navy and air force are still powerful.

Today we will deal with north, central and western Europe.

The Baltic Alliance

This would be an alliance that includes Poland, Germany, Sweden, Finland, Norway, Denmark, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia and would provide cover for land, air and naval battles. Each of these countries, with the exception of Germany, has a border with Russia and all are on the Baltic Sea – a key waterway for them and for Russia.

An alliance of these countries would force them to concentrate on those areas necessary for their defense. An incursion, for example into Finland would force Poland to mass forces on its border with Russia and Belarus (Poland borders Russia in Kaliningrad which is separated from Russia proper by Lithuania) and Germany to move forces to Poland. All countries could also contribute ground forces to Finland as well as naval and air power.

The only thing missing is the lack of a nuclear umbrella. That is no small issue but can be dealt with by support or threats from France or the U.K.

The Atlantic Alliance

Aside from helping the Baltic Alliance, France and the U.K will have major responsibility along with the Netherlands for patrolling the North Atlantic and, with help from Portugal, and Spain the South Atlantic. As the Atlantic Ocean can be considered one of America’s seas, this alliance will need to have the close cooperation if not outright membership of the United States. Canada too, will need to be part of this alliance. We can include the increasingly important Arctic Ocean into this alliance’s responsibilities.

As we move towards the south Atlantic countries such as Morocco, can be included as well as other western African allies of the west. An alliance like that could encourage western African countries to abandon close security and economic ties with China and Russia. The “border” of this alliance would be that squiggly line in the middle of the Atlantic that separates the Eastern and Western hemispheres.

The Central European Alliance

We can look at the smaller central European countries that formed the heart of what was the Hapsburg Empire but are not front line countries bordering Russia – Romania, Hungary, Slovakia, Czech Republic, Austria, Serbia and Bulgaria – and we have an alliance that, backed by Germany, Poland and the United States, would create a further deterrence to Russian encroachment into Europe proper.

Where, do you ask does Ukraine fall in this European alliance structure? That answer will have to come from the major European powers in concert with the United States. Adding Ukraine to the Baltic alliance might be viewed as another attempt to NATO-ize them by the Russians. However, attaching them to the less threatening Central European Alliance of smaller countries might be the excuse and “victory” that Putin would need to end the war. But we are getting ahead of ourselves here. Ukraine is a problem that can only be solved if the West decides to actively join the fight against Russia (unlikely) or when Putin and Russia get tired of the fight and look for a way out that could allow them to claim victory (more likely than the former, but sadly, a long way off).

The Administration’s concentration on regions and how certain countries can become leaders in support of western and American interests is correct – but the breakdown of the regions has to go beyond the post WWII world. The place of America in the post-cold war world, with a China that wants to challenge America’s economic and military interests and leadership needs to break down old alliances into more manageable and logical pieces.

The wild card in all of this is, of course, the will of the European powers to take their own defense seriously. The Baltic Alliance we spoke about seems to be filled with countries that understand the threat from Russia, but do they recognize the threat to them from the alignment, the Axis if you will, of Russia, Iran, North Korea and China? And of more importance have they yet come to understand the threat to their countries, as they know them, from open immigration and from their own abhorrence of families? The former is something only the governments can handle, the latter though, must come from the people themselves.

A whole generation (or two in many instances) of Europeans have grown up not only as “only children” but in families that have no aunts and no uncles, no cousins and only very elderly grandparents, if that. They have grown up in other words without families. Will the young generation see the importance of families to themselves and their countries or will they continue the nihilistic lives that they parents have “sanctified”? Religious institutions, too will have a major role in this challenge. No amount of “parental leave” and childcare subsidies will convince the young to marry and have children – will only come from a change in the culture. Is Europe up to it?

Disclaimer: the views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of the author, and not necessarily the opinions reflected by angrymetatraders.com or its associated parties.

You can follow Ira Slomowitz via The Angry Demagogue on Substack https://iraslomowitz.substack.com/ 

postN72

U.S National Security: USD Reserve Currency Importance

by with No Comment AMT MarketsAssetsFeatured Highlights

U.S National Security: USD Reserve Currency Importance

Opinion: The following article is commentary and its views are solely those of the author. This article was first published the 23rd of December via The Angry Demagogue.

We would like to start going through the U.S administration’s National Security Strategy released last month. There is a lot in there – much of it the same as in past administrations and much of it different. The tone of course is full Trump and while the introductory parts try to make it into a revolutionary document it does in fact build upon much of what has been American foreign policy for decades. One thing it most certainly gets right is that American foreign policy since the end of the Cold War has not found its compass. From a unitary world to one dependent upon global organizations, from a sharing of goals with western Europe to a pivot to Asia, from the war on terror and the middle east to Russia-Ukraine, the United States has struggled to find its way in the post-Cold War world.

postN72

We however will concentrate today on one aspect of the strategy, the third bullet in part III – “What Are America’s Available Means to Get What We Want?”. The third bullet point speaks of America having “The world’s leading financial system and capital markets, including the Dollar’s global reserve currency status” – a point that no one with any knowledge of global capital markets can not accept. The end of the bullet point – the Dollar’s global reserve currency status – is the most important because it underscores America’s leadership and essentially allows the United States of America to finance its military and its welfare state. The U.S Dollar as the “reserve currency” means that nearly all the world’s goods are quoted and therefore sold in Dollars.

Why is that important to the United States? Because the U.S government depends on its ability to issue Treasury bonds and bills at will – something no other government can do. It can do this because for another country to buy oil or copper or titanium or corn or soybeans from a country that is not their own– they need access to Dollars. Saudi Arabia and the other gulf states quote the price of oil in U.S Dollars and demand payment in U.S Dollars. The Saudis can deposit those Dollars in American banks or in what is called Eurodollar deposits in foreign banks (there are some 13 trillion Dollars in Eurodollar accounts globally). The Eurodollar accounts are essentially promises by the bank to give U.S Dollars to the holder when he makes a withdrawal. This strengthens the U.S capital markets and allows investors to have better and more investment choices. It is not only America’s often superior companies that bring profits to 401k’s and pension funds but the liquidity and vastness of America’s capital markets that can list domestic and foreign corporations. The reserve currency leading to the advanced capital markets allows the world – and America – to do this.

The U.S Treasury market is so liquid because every country needs Dollars in order to trade. They need to have enough dollar reserves since no one actually wants their own currency. In Israel, for example, local gas companies cannot buy oil with Israeli Shekels, since what will Azerbaijan, for example, do with them? There are only so many products that Israel can sell them. They need Dollars so that they are free to buy other commodities or other products.

The U.S Dollar as a reserve currency also is a break on inflation since the price of oil and other commodities is always in U.S Dollars. A weak or strong U.S Dollar influences the inflation rate in non-USD countries. A weak Israeli Shekel, South African Rand or Chinese Yuan does not influence the price of gasoline in the United States.

In short – as the Trump Administration understands well, the dollar as a reserve currency is a luxury the U.S cannot give up. The lack of the USD as a reserve currency could cause the Dollar to collapse and along with it the price of U.S Treasuries. As UST prices drop, their yields will rise and the cost of financing the U.S government will make interest payments on debt to rise well beyond its already absurd figure of over 4% of GDP – while debt itself is 120% of GDP. The U.S government currently pays over $1 trillion in debt service (interest payments on its bonds and bills). By contrast, the U.S defense budget for 2024 was $836 billion (about 3.3% of GDP).

We need to ask ourselves what can challenge the USD as the reserve currency and what could happen that would encourage the world to change? While the E.U had dreams of making the Euro an alternative reserve currency, the lack of growth in the E.U’s economy and population have put that dream to rest. The only other country that could theoretically replace the United States as the global economic go to country could be China. While in the long run, China’s lack of openness would probably mean that the Yuan would not last long as the reserve currency, that does not mean that they couldn’t jolt the global economy just enough to force it to use the Yuan to buy oil and other commodities.

China is already cornering the market on rare earth minerals and it making inroads in Africa where it mines all sorts of commodities from gold to copper to platinum and so many others (Africa has about 30% of global mineral reserves). That in itself is not enough to rock the global markets and cause a change in how the world does business.

Oil though, is that one thing that could allow China to challenge the USD as the reserve currency, even if it just presents the Yuan as an alternative.

How could that happen?

A Chinese takeover of Taiwan, by whatever means it uses would give the Chinese Communist Party control not only of the South China Sea but also allow its noisier and inferior (to America’s) submarine fleet to enter the Pacific and patrol it freely. The Chinese Navy, with a base on the “other” side of Taiwan would give it control of the north-south sea lanes that Japan and South Korea are dependent upon. Essentially, Chinese control of Taiwan would put Japan, South Korea, Vietnam and the Philippines at the mercy of the Chinese Navy. China could blockade these countries but that would be an act of war and then involve the navies of those countries and possibly the United States. It would affect the global economy negatively but it would not cause a change in world’s reserve currency. But, what if China works out a deal with Saudi Arabia to quote and sell their oil in Yuan (or the Chinese Petro-Yuan it wants to create) and then tells these countries, especially industrial powerhouses and energy poor Japan and South Korea that it will allow the passage of oil as long as they purchase the oil in Yuan?

Russia is already trying to get India to pay it for its oil in Yuan, to some success. Adding economies the size of Japan and South Korea would mean that any country that wants to buy oil could buy it in Yuan instead of Dollars. Once in Yuan, these countries would need to use the Yuan to buy Chinese products, deposit cash there and buy Chinese treasury bills. If China were to combine that with demands that all chips made in Taiwan also be sold in Yuan, the U.S Dollar would suddenly and forcefully no longer be the only reserve currency in the world.

Obviously, the way to stop this from happening is by stating outright that the United States will not tolerate a Chinese takeover of Taiwan. It is true, that the Strategy claims that the US “will also maintain our longstanding declaratory policy on Taiwan, meaning that the United States does not support any unilateral change to the status quo in the Taiwan Strait” but in practice the administration has criticized Japan’s tough talk on China instead of leaving it be. A strong silence on Prime Minister Takaichi’s remarks on China would have served the purpose of keeping the status quo more than telling her to tone down her rhetoric. There is a strong “no intervention ever” strain in the country and the President must make the case that that is not an option if the United States wants to maintain its leadership position, way of life and general prosperity.

In short, the threat to the Dollar as the reserve currency heads right through Taiwan. For those who think that the investment the U.S makes in keeping the Dollar where it is, is too expensive, just think of going on vacation and having the change to Yuan before you leave the country, wondering how much to change because of currency fluctuation and how much fun it is to return with hundreds of dollars in banknotes that you can’t use. Imagine your credit card bill on such travels and wondering how you went 15% over budget but didn’t get anything extra for it. Now imagine the national economy working that way.

Disclaimer: the views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of the author, and not necessarily the opinions reflected by angrymetatraders.com or its associated parties.

You can follow Ira Slomowitz via The Angry Demagogue on Substack https://iraslomowitz.substack.com/ 

post246

An Expanding Axis – Will Egypt and Pakistan Become Members?

by with No Comment Behavioral SentimentBusinessFeatured Highlights

An Expanding Axis - Will Egypt and Pakistan Become Members?

Opinion: The following article is commentary and its views are solely those of the author. This article was first published the 26th of May via The Angry Demagogue.

post246

China seems to be taking advantage of the transition from the Obama-Biden appeasement based foreign policy to the Trump commercial based system. Whereas Obama-Biden had no problem punishing allies that dared to oppose the US-EU appeasement and woke revolution, Trump is looking to create alliances based on commerce – and threatens allies that don’t go along. While the Obama-Biden policy failed utterly and arguably caused the wars in Ukraine and the Middle East, the Trump administration seems to be playing for time as it restructures the global security order.

China however does not seem to care to wait and are stretching their sway not only in the South China Sea but westward towards the Middle East. The four member Axis – Russia, China, Iran and North Korea seems to be expanding to other countries with strong military dictatorships. Egypt and Pakistan will be the next members of the Axis. While much of China’s belt and road policy deals with bankrupting poor, weak countries, they seem now to concentrate on strong military dictatorships. Egypt and Pakistan are being pried from the western camp as we speak.

Pakistan has, for awhile not been firmly in the western camp. It was a cold war U.S ally as India, while democratic, sided with the Soviets on most international issues. While the US was busy in Afghanistan, the Pakistanis played double agent. Now that the U.S is not in the region and the U.S and India have become closer, Pakistan is now firmly in the Chinese camp.

In addition to Pakistan, Egypt becoming the next major member of the Axis.

Let’s take a few steps back and examine the burgeoning relationship between Egypt – a military dictatorship and Communist China. As we have written China and Egypt had joint military maneuvers that included deliberate violations of the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty guaranteed by the United States. Egypt, in thumbing its nose not only at Israel but at the United States, allowed Chinese planes to approach the Israeli border in order to test Israeli reaction to a possible invasion. Multiple Chinese military cargo jets flew in undisclosed hardware in the days leading up to the maneuvers.

Three more Chinese Y-20 cargo planes landed in Egypt last week again, carrying unknown hardware. At least one of these planes came from Pakistan. Egypt also seems to be signing major arms deals with France as Macron reeks of desperation in his attempt to remain relevant – but a de Gaulle he is not, and he will not be able to create a force or policy independent of the U.S. Egypt will be glad to take advanced French weaponry while it creates a stronger alliance with China.

Back to Pakistan one has to wonder if the Pakistan-Indian flareup a prelude to what can happen in other theatres – or worse, a purposeful conflagration to test Chinese weapons systems in actual combat and keep the West on its back feet? According to most reports they were able to shoot down between 3 and 5 of France’s most advanced Rafal fighters without even entering Indian territory. The confrontation started with a heinous terrorist attack against Indians in Kashmir by a terror group associated with the Pakistani armed forces. India claims that Pakistan is directly involved in the attack. If so, this would not have been the first one.

The downing of the Indian French built Rafal fighters by Pakistan’s Chinese produced 10-C was, according to expert reports, not just or even mainly superior piloting but with a Chinese strategy and technology that includes all aspects of air power – including recognition of the target, locking on and attack from distances in what an American air expert called a perfect air based killing machine. This would seem to be the first real test of Chinese advanced air-power and it something that needed to be done before any invasion of Taiwan. This may not test their own pilots but it does test the strategy and the technology.

China has a main medium term goal here and it is not a secret. They are planning to take Taiwan by force and need to make sure their soldiers, sailors and hardware are up to the job. They have seen how poorly the Russian army has performed and have seen how Israel has dismantled Iran’s defenses and swatted away Iran’s offensive attacks. China has not fought a major war for decades and for all the advances they say they have made – all have been untested. Until now.

China will not risk a war with India itself but would be more than happy to have its proxy involved. Chinese fighters and their new “over the horizon” missiles are key in their plans to deter the U.S from defending Taiwan – or in defeating U.S naval airpower if the U.S does get actively involved. However, as close as French technology is to America’s it is not the same and the one country that seems to have taken U.S technology to the next level is Israel. How would Chinese weaponry due against American arms in the hands of an air force equivalent in skill and bravery to the American air forces? That has yet to be tested but that brings us back to Egypt. Is it in China’s interests for Egypt to make a major break with the U.S at China’s urging much as they made a break with the Soviet Union at America’s urging? Of course. Would that mean that China might help Egypt provoke a military confrontation with Israel in order to test Chinese arms and relieve pressure on Iran? Maybe.

On to Iran then, where it does not seem that the Americans or Israelis understand the nature of the Iranian-Chinese relationship. Not only does China get the bulk of its oil (subsidized) from Iran but they have just completed a rail link from Xinjiang, China to Teheran, Iran – running through four countries. This rail line can ship oil as well as other cargo, cutting into the American (and Indian) naval superiority around the Persian Gulf and Indian Ocean. The assumption by military planners has always been that the U.S can cut off Chinese access to oil, if necessary. That is no longer the case.

China is not standing still – they are expanding their axis of dictatorships to countries in which the army is in control. Pakistan and Egypt qualify. Iran, while a theocracy is controlled by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards. No matter the “deal” that the Trump administration negotiates with Iran they will not be pried away from Iran. China has more to offer an ideological dictatorship then commercial deals with the United States. What the alleged realists in foreign policy refuse to understand is that dictatorships have no interest in commercial success if it weakens their grip on power. They are interested in deals that enrich their regimes since that also strengthens their grip on their people.

The trillion of so dollars in deals that the U.S has now made with the Persian Gulf states ensures that America remains a player in the middle east. Those who think that the Mideast is a tertiary region at best – after Asia and South America – need to rethink their strategies. As China closes in on control of the world from the Pacific to the Mediterranean the U.S is left with just two military powers it can depend on – Israel and India – to help defend its old/new commercial interests. It is not only oil – it is not Boeing jets, Nvidia chips and many other products that are moving from the US to the Gulf as opposed from the Gulf to the U.S. The U.S is no longer a commercial client of the Gulf states but the country who needs to protect its clients. The relationship has changed but the security relationship has only gotten more important.

The addition of Egypt and Pakistan to the Axis means that the Chinese threat has expanded. They are not giving up on Taiwan, nor are they giving up on South America and the Pacific Ocean but rather, China is using its experience as a dictatorship to strengthen ties with other freedom hating countries. We can all pretend that values and culture don’t matter, but that doesn’t mean that they don’t. This Axis is one where the interest of each member is to stay in power, force its will on its people and enrich itself at the expense of its people. This is an Axis, not only of the unfree, but of those who need to eradicate freedom to “thrive”.

Disclaimer: the views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of the author, and not necessarily the opinions reflected by angrymetatraders.com or its associated parties.

You can follow Ira Slomowitz via The Angry Demagogue on Substack https://iraslomowitz.substack.com/ 

post234

New Alternatives for Regional Alliances & Global Effects?

by with No Comment Behavioral SentimentBusinessFeatured Highlights

New Alternatives for Regional Alliances & Global Effects?

post234

Opinion: The following article is commentary and its views are solely those of the author. This article was first published the 14th of March, 2025 via The Angry Demagogue.

There is so much going on that it really is difficult to keep up. Israel is at the center of many of the regional developments, as would be expected. But it is not just Israel as Israel, but Israel as an ally of the United States that is interesting. The Syria problem we have written about and it is still not clear what the Trump administration’s policy is there as they look skeptically but hopefully at Al-Julani’s Syria. In our opinion that decision will be made for them, since the chances that Al-Julani has changed his stripes to a Western democrat is small and even if we are wrong there – the armed Jihadist groups that he needs to control seem more interested in ridding Syria of ‘heretics’ than stabilizing the country.

Lebanon has changed enough for the United States and Israel to take chances. While it is too bad that Israel did not do more in ridding the country of Hezbollah, the fact that Syria is no longer part of the Shiite crescent means that they are isolated and not able to get funding and arms from Iran with the same ease. What is important about the current Lebanese government is that Hezbollah is not a part of it. That does not leave them powerless, but it allows the government to act more independently. The Lebanese Shiites, under Hezbollah and the less but still militant Amal, will have to rethink their loyalty to these two organizations. At the least, it should move Amal away from their stronger partner.

Iran now has no land route to Hezbollah and will have a harder time arming the Houthis, too. But it is in Iraq that they are facing problems which could cause as much damage to their projection of power as did the loss of Syria. Due to US pressure, Iraq has stopped buying Iranian electricity although they can still buy gas. It seems that the US is giving Iraq some time to find alternatives to Iranian gas and the Iraqi government is moving away from Iran on other issues too and are trying to get rid of Iran’s Shiite militias.

But the most interesting thing to happen is Israel’s attempt to strengthen America’s relationship with Azerbaijan, a country that Israel is in close contact with regarding Iran. Israel has always been rumored to plan to use Azeri air force bases in a possible attack on Iran. The Azeri official responsible for regional development was in Israel last month and is trying to bridge differences between Israel and Turkey. The Azeri’s next stop after Israel was to Turkey. Steve Witkoff is reported to have stopped in Baku after his visit to Moscow.

An Azeri company has also bought rights to Israel’s Tamar gas field. Israel currently gets oil from Azerbaijan via a pipeline that goes through Turkey so the energy relationship is strong and longstanding between Israel and Azerbaijan. It seems that Turkey’s relationship with Azerbaijan is more important to them than their animosity towards Israel – probably because the Azeris and Armenians are enemies. It seems that sometimes not only friendships have to be ranked but enemies, too.

Trump’s game with Ukraine is not necessarily to my taste but it could be that there is something much bigger going on here and that is connecting Israel, Russia, Central Asia and Turkey to a grand alliance with the United States. I don’t think that Trump will succeed in pulling Russia away from Iran and China and that Erdogan’s Turkey will not give up their dream of destroying Israel. But what if the Iranian regime falls after a combination of harsh sanctions, economic collapse and Israeli military attacks? What if Iran is pulled away from the alliance leaving Russia with just China? What if a Russian base in Syria is dependent upon their moving away from China?

Last year the Axis held a near continuous land bridge from the Pacific to the Mediterranean. China was moving into Russia’s “sphere of influence” in the “Stans” of Central Asia with their economic bear hugs. This was something that the Biden administration ignored, but could be a bigger headache for Putin than a well armed but non-NATO Ukraine with American businessmen instead of soldiers as a tripwire.

Are we giving too much credit to Trump and his foreign policy team and to Israel’s influence in the expanded region that reaches beyond Syria? Is there more going on than we know or less?

On October 7 and the days that followed, the Biden Administration was sure that Israel was in such a panic that it would agree to anything, and they could force the Obama Middle East of a hegemonic Iran and a Palestinian state down Israel’s throats – and overthrow Netanyahu as an extra. None of those things happened.

Only a fool would predict what will be in a year, but what we have discussed above is one scenario no one would have considered even six months ago. The post WWII world looked nothing like the world of 1937, and the post WWIII world (the one we wrote about a year ago and may or may not have happened!) will look nothing like September 2023 – no matter how hard the UN yells and screams.

Could Israel and Azerbaijan be the keys to a realigned world?

It is against my nature to be optimistic, especially since Israel is still not done with Gaza, the hostages are not yet home and the internal politics are reaching levels that border on a soft coup.

However, while we don’t know where the aces are, we know that the Obama-Biden jokers are no longer in the deck.

Disclaimer: the views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of the author, and not necessarily the opinions reflected by angrymetatraders.com or its associated parties.

You can follow Ira Slomowitz via The Angry Demagogue on Substack https://iraslomowitz.substack.com/