Ira Slomowitz Archives - Angry Meta Traders

Can An Economic D-Day Win the War?

September 9, 2026

by Ira Slomowitz with No Comment Assets Behavioral Sentiment Economy Exclusive Content Featured Highlights Financial Institutions Ira Slomowitz Risk Management Uncategorized World

Only Along with Military Might in Order to Avoid Stalemate

Opinion: The following article is commentary and its views are solely those of the author. This article was first published the 9th of September via The Angry Demagogue.

The main tool that the West has used against tyrants has been that of economic sanctions since they have not been willing to commit military assets to the fight. This has been going on with Iran for decades and with Russia in various forms for over ten years and yet both countries have managed to launch wars (on their own or via proxies) during times of minimum and maximum sanctions.

The signing of the MoU by the Trump administration was seen as a naïve undertaking at best and a surrender at worst. But like the Palestinians who never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity, so too have their friends the Iranian Islamists. Rather than “taking the win” as President Biden would have advised, the Islamist Republic decided to double down on their treachery, hitting shipping in the Straits of Hormuz as well as American allies in the Gulf and Jordan, with impunity. The tit for tat response that the U.S has been using, copying Israel’s pre-October 7 failures in Gaza and Lebanon, has brought no real gains.

Can An Economic D-Day Win the War?

President Trump’s turn to Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and his economic D-Day against Iran is supposed to change the nature of economic warfare in general and the war against Iran in particular. If the goal is getting them back to the negotiating table then there is a good chance it will work. However, if one thinks that once at the table the negotiations will go differently than it did before, one would be foolish. If the goal is, as it ought to be, to bring down the regime, that is a more difficult end.

However, we are seeing a few things taking place that are accompanying this economic D-Day. It is not clear if these actions are part of the U.S plan to bring down the Islamic Republic or if they are just coincidences but if the latter, they are the luckiest coincidences in U.S foreign policy in quite some time.

Hezbollah and the Houthis are two of the three main Iranian proxies left, the third being in Iraq. And while Hamas still lives, their military capabilities have been degraded enough as to make them a minor protector of Iran and an even less minor projector of Iranian power. People tend to downplay the importance of the “proxies” to the Islamic regime and what their collapse could mean to it. For nearly half a century the Islamic Republic has been concentrating on extending its power and prestige in the Middle East (and globally) at the expense of its own people. These proxies are a core part of the Islamic Republic. Hezbollah and the Houthis for example mean more to the Islamic Republic than do most of their own citizens. If their citizens revolt, they just kill them, if their proxies fall or leave their orbit, the regime itself is in danger

In Iraq the U.S government has been working diligently with the Iraqi government ot neutralize the Shiite militias. But the Iraqi militias are more a thorn in the side than a real power. The Saudis, however, have begun a major offensive against the Houthis and are closing in on the Houthi capital of Sanaa. True enough the Houthis are fighting back and hitting Saudi oil infrastructure (one wonders why Turkey and Pakistan are not living up to their obligations in the “Mecca Accords” – but that is for another day) but it seems that Saudi Arabia is finally taking the Iranian threat seriously and hundreds of Houthi fighters have surrendered to Saudi and other Sunni forces. There were reports that the U.S turned down a Saudi request to fight the Houthis, but that doesn’t mean they have not coordinated the fighting together. The civil war has been going on in Yemen since the early 1960’s or before and while this probably won’t end the war it might force whomever is the Shiite replacement for the Houthis to concentrate on internal fighting and to leave the Bab-el-Mandeb Straits untouched. This is a key Saudi goal as it needs multiple routes for its oil exports.

Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Red Sea and Gulf of Aden

In Lebanon, Israel has captured the main forward base of Hezbollah in the tunnels under the Al-Tahar ridge. This is a major tunnel system, cut into the mountains that contains full command and control centers as well as rocket and drone launching capabilities hidden from the Israeli air force. The Al-Tahar complex was unknown to Israel until rather recently with Reuters claiming that Iranian officers were or still are held up inside the tunnel network. Israel has followed this up with attacks on the town of Nabatiyeh which the al-Tahir ridge overlooks as well as other Shiite towns that are centers of Hezbollah activity. Nabatiyeh is not just another Shiite village but the largest city in the eastern part of southern Lebanon and serves as the administrative center of the area. It is, of course, a Hezbollah stronghold. While the MoU gave Iran a veto over what would happen in Lebanon, its disintegration has given Israel free reign to finally take care of the Hezbollah presence in the country.

Towns Along Lebanon and Israel Border

In a more surprising move, taking a page from Trump’s own playbook, Pakistan has issued exorbitant tariffs on commercial traffic going to and from Iran threatening a land route to China and what was a safe way to bring in needed goods from abroad.

According to reports, Iran has just two months of fuel left in the country. The currency has tumbled even more and, much like Weimar Germany, stores are changing their prices multiple times a day in order to keep up with the inflation.

Pakistan and Iranian Border Areas

Does this all mean that Iran can fall in the coming months? The people who could lead such a regime change are those who witnessed the January massacre of over 40,000 of their fellow citizens and who continue to witness daily executions of the protesters the regime has jailed. It is difficult to predict these things but hard to believe that they will put themselves in a position for another massacre so soon after the last one and to succeed. On the other hand, the economy is in such a shambles that at some point the army might get involved if they are getting paid after the Revolutionary Guards.

One thing we need to take into consideration is if the Gulf States will now be stricter in their dealings with Iran. The UAE, as much as it is one of the more Western oriented of the Gulf States still has been allowing Iranian funds to flow through that country (as it seems, it allows Russian funds to flow) and Qatar is always playing a double game. Will at least the UAE shut down all Iranian pipelines. As for Europe, they seem to be falling in behind the American effort and China is getting impatient with having to pay market prices for their oil. None of this means that in practice they will follow Scott Bessent’s D-Day, but at least in public they are supportive.

Much as the Israeli hostages were only released after massive military pressure led to Hamas seeing them as liabilities rather than assets, the military destruction of the main Iranian proxies, a total blockade of Iran itself combined with real sanctions that denies the IRGC the money and material it needs to continue its internal and external terror could lead to the regime’s downfall. Or, it could require more American military power – either an occupation of Kharg and other Iranian islands or, more likely, some massive B2 strikes on key IRGC and nuclear installations.

There are two other forces that might interdict an American victory in the Gulf and that is the Turkey-Qatar alliance and Saudi cowardice. Erdogan’s Turkey has no interest in a collapse of an already weakened Iran as they look to be hegemon over the Middle East and Eastern Mediterranean and need some residual threat from Iran to Israel. If they press the United States to stop the Israeli destruction of Hezbollah or if they further their military presence in Syria, forcing Israel’s hand, America will lose. Qatar too, needs friction so that its money (it has nothing else) is still of value.

A non-Islamist Iran could surprise the world and grow into a regional economic, industrial and military power that, in alliance with the UAE and Israel would challenge the Turkish-Qatari-Moslem Brotherhood alliance. Tukey-Qatar need a weakened Iran.

These are the four steps that could lead to an American victory:

– The destruction of Iran’s economy via the economic D-Day
– The destruction of the Hezbollah in Lebanon.
– The end of the Houthis regime in Yemen.
– A renewed American air campaign against key IRGC targets.

Taking any of these four off the table or taking advice from Turkey or Qatar will lead either to an American defeat or, in a best case scenario, a stalemate.

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/

The Challenge of October 7: Part 4 – The Political and Legal System

August 2, 2026

by Ira Slomowitz with No Comment Behavioral Sentiment Exclusive Content Featured Highlights Investing Ira Slomowitz Uncategorized World

Towards a Convenantal Framework

Opinion: The following article is commentary and its views are solely those of the author. This article was first published the 28th of July via The Angry Demagogue.

Israel’s political and legal systems are broken beyond repair. Created in 1948 in order to allow a smooth transition from the political format of the Jewish Agency, which represented pre-state Palestinian Jewry (as the Jewish population of the British Mandate was called) it has continued more due to the inertia and the comfort with which the faction leaders ruled than to any political efficiency. If the American founding fathers wanted to create a system which de-emphasized factions, Israel’s was specifically formed to retain and sharpen them.

Part of this had to do with the socialist and religious backgrounds of many of the country’s leaders, both of which emphasized a ruling elite. They were comfortable ruling and therefore leadership turned from public service to the rule of the few. Benjamin Netanyahu was not the first Prime Minster or party leader to not voluntarily step aside and under the current system, he won’t be the last.

The Challenge of October 7: Part 4 -Towards a Convenantal Framework

Respect for intellect, expertise and rank formed the basis of the legal system, too. Only those that “know” should pick judges and prosecutors, being experts need have no oversight. The Israeli legal system does not allow any non-judicial oversight of the judicial system and does not allow any oversight of the persecutors besides the prosecutors themselves. At the start, the legal system was based on the British legal tradition and incorporated Ottoman law, too. However, the judges and law professors were almost all German origin. From the start it was a mess.

The current Israeli political system is a parliament, the Knesset, that has 120 members voted in either every 5 years or if the government falls. Voters vote for a party list that is determined before the election. There is strict proportional representation with one caveat – a party needs a minimum of 4 seats to get in. That is approximately 3.5% of the vote. All parties that do not pass the minimum threshold get nothing and their votes do not count. Once the final tallies are made one party needs to convince others to join in a coalition that needs to be at least 61 seats.

The legal system consists of a judiciary that is chosen by a committee that includes 3 sitting Supreme Court justices, two members of the Israeli bar association (selected by the head of the bar association), two cabinet members – one of which is the Justice Minister and chairman of the committee and two members of the Knesset who are not minsters, one of whom is in the opposition. Lower court judges need a simple majority of the committee while Supreme Court justices need 7 of the nine members. In practice, this means that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court (who chooses the other two members from the Court) has veto power over future members of the Supreme Court. In other words, they choose their successors.

There is another anomaly to the justice system and that is the position of Legal Advisor to the Government. This is a position appointed by the government but who serves a set term so that any specific government does not get to choose their advisor. The Legal Advisor can veto any law and any appointment – and can be overruled only by the Supreme Court. The Legal Advisor also is in charge of the prosecution’s office and decides on whom to indict.

This in a nutshell is the Israeli system that has worked as long as there has been a bit of modesty on the part of all involved. Modesty though, not being the top virtue of politicians, judges and lawyers, is in short supply.

I am by nature a conservative. I don’t believe in radical or revolutionary changes but in slow amendments to what needs to be improved. However, the Israeli political and legal systems are so broken that they need radical overhauls.

Here is our (not so) modest proposal for a reformed political and legal system.

The Israeli political system, being Jewish and free ought to be established under the basis of the “covenant”. A covenantal system establishes sovereignty and reciprocity. A covenantal system is between the citizens and God, with sovereignty not in the hands of the unknowable divine but in the very real citizens. This is a religious concept but it is NOT a basis for a theocracy. Rather, it states forthrightly that sovereignty rests in neither the executive branch, nor the legislative branch nor in the judicial branch. The citizens of the country are sovereign since it is their covenant with God and not the State’s rulers and all decision making must make its way back to its citizens. (I would like to give credit to this idea to an old friend Alan Mittleman – who I have lost touch with – and his book The Scepter Shall not Depart from Judah”, although I may not be interpreting his idea as he stated).

Toward this end we would like to propose the following which keeps the Israeli proportional representation intact but adds stability, checks and balances and most importantly, the centrality of the citizen in the decision-making process. We will be working backwards in that we are not proposing a constitution but rather a form of government that can then decide on the rights and responsibilities that the citizens have and that the government has to its sovereign – the covenanted citizens.

Legislative Branch

Israel needs a bi-cameral legislature but not as it is in the U.S or the UK. In our proposal the Lower House would continue to be elected with proportional representation. They will select a government and the Prime Minister will be a member of the Lower House.

Lower House

The Lower House election would be scheduled every four years and the Knesset would elect the government from its own members as it does today. A simple majority would elect a government and a government would fall with a super-majority of 75 (out of 120). Unlike in most parliamentary democracies, in the structure we propose, a parliament that falls mid term would only serve until the original scheduled 4 year date. This would encourage stability, but still allow a change in government.

If a government falls and another is elected by the current Knesset, that government would also serve out the term of the original government. If a government falls and no government can be agreed upon by the current Knesset, elections for the Lower House would be held to serve out the original term only.

Upper House

The upper house will act as an overseer of the Lower House, the government, the bureaucracy and the Judicial branch. While the Lower House will continue with its 120 members, the upper house will have regional representatives. We suggest 30 districts, equalized in population and each with two representatives. Members will serve 4 year terms and be limited to three terms. There will be elections every two years for half the upper house, with each district always voting for one member every two years.

Members of the upper house would not be allowed to serve in the Lower House after their terms are up, but the opposite would be allowed. This will allow experienced legislators from the Lower House to run and sit in the upper house but they would have to give up their ambition to be Prime Minister as only members of the Lower House could hold that position. Members of the Upper House also cannot be government ministers.

The responsibilities of the Upper House will be legislative, constitutional and investigative. They will have to approve all laws from the Lower House with a simple majority and all “basic laws” – or constitutional laws – will originate in the upper house. These will be passed with at least 40 of the 60 members of the upper house and then sent to the Lower House for their approval

The Upper House will also have the responsibility of choosing lower court judges and Supreme Court justices. The former by a simple majority and the latter by at least 40 of the 60 votes. It will also have the power to remove judges with the same super-majority.

The Upper house will also have investigative and subpoena power – which the legislative branch does not now hold. The debate of the non-investigation of October 7 would have been solved statutorily by the Upper House. It will have total independence from the Lower House and therefore can debate issues and lead investigations without the undo influence of government or opposition.

As for checking and balancing the Upper House, we suggest a recall method that can be triggered by the citizens of the region they represent.

The Government/Executive Branch

One of the main problems with the executive branch is its bloat – too many ministries and too many bureaucrats. There needs to be a statutory limit of 10-15 ministries, appointed by the government and approved by the Lower House.

The Executive Branch also needs independence of action and ought to be able to appoint those who will further its policy goals. Senior bureaucratic and legal officials (in the government – not the Judicial branch) should be appointed by the government as a whole with only a special majority in the Upper House of 40 able to veto them. This should be true regarding the government’s Legal Advisor, Chief Prosecutor, Head of the General Staff and the Shabak (Shin Bet) and Mossad as well as Directors General of the various ministries.

The Prime Minister will be the commander in chief of the military and the internal and external intelligence services will report directly to him. The Prime Minister will have the right to fire ministers at will but can only appoint new ones with the approval of the Lower House.

The Judicial Branch and Legal System

There needs to be a delicate balance between the independence of the court and its being answerable to the citizens of the country. The abuse of power that an unsupervised court system is at least as dangerous to a free society as one that is not independent of the political branches. We try to solve that problem by giving the Upper House the power to appoint judges and justices, and if necessary, to remove judges with a supermajority.

Supreme Court justices should be appointed for one 25 year term irrespective of age. The justices should be able to review all laws except those passed by 2/3rds of the Upper and Lower Houses of parliament. In the case of a law passed by more than 2/3rds of both houses then judicial review should not be allowed.

A total reform must be made of the Government Legal Advisor system. They essentially have veto power over all government decisions, discussions and appointments. They also control the prosecution and the Police’s internal affairs unit. Finally, they have no oversight besides when the government challenges their own legal advisor in the Supreme Court. (This reform needs to be substantial but we do not have room for it here).

This is a rough outline, sometimes detailed and sometimes not, of the changes that need to be made after October 7. The idolatrous rule of the experts brings with it hubris that has caused too many disasters – most especially, October 7. The Upper House of the parliament that we propose should balance the will of the people with the rule of the experts by making it answerable primarily to the citizens of the country.

This is not some utopian proposal that will solve all problems, but rather a framework where people can feel confident in the institutions that are supposed to serve them.

The move towards a covenantal government means that respect must flow from leaders to the citizens and authority from the citizens to the government. For most of the last few decades the reform of government in Israel was limited either to direct election of the Prime Minister or an increase in members of the Knesset. The first was tried and failed. The second is just a power grab by the parties so that they can add more friends to the public payroll.

Our suggestion on the other hand, gives the Prime Minister the authority needed to run the country and the citizens with a tool to keep the government, the legal system and the bureaucracy in line.

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/

The Challenge of October 7: Part 3 – Security and Foreign Policy

July 29, 2026

by Ira Slomowitz with No Comment Behavioral Sentiment Exclusive Content Featured Highlights Ira Slomowitz Uncategorized World

Towards a Definition of Israel's National Interests

Opinion: The following article is commentary and its views are solely those of the author. This article was first published the 24th of July via The Angry Demagogue.

Ever since the end of the first Lebanon War, Israeli military strategy has moved from active and aggressive defense of the homeland and its citizens via a policy of taking the fight to enemy territory to passive defense based on the threat of massive force – in other words, deterrence. The object was to create a situation where the enemy feared attacking us and to use our military force as a reason to go to the negotiating table. The assumption was that if we were strong enough, we could make concessions and deal with whatever situation arose. “The IDF is strong enough to deal with it” was the phrase de jour. Israel was at peace with Egypt and Syria’s Hafez Assad had no interest in a frontal attack after his air force was embarrassed in 1982 by losing over 60 aircraft in dogfights with Israel as well as 29 of their 30 SAM anti-aircraft batteries.

The PLO moved to Tunisia after the Lebanon War and other enemies, Iraq and Iran, were too far to be a non-terrorist threat. After Begin destroyed the Iraqi nuclear program, “only” terrorism seemed to be a threat. Terrorism though, to the Israeli leadership did not pose a “existential” threat to Israel, as Yitzchak Rabin was quick to repeat after Oslo, so deterrence seemed like a good military strategy for existential threats.

The Challenge of October 7: Part 3 – Security and Foreign Policy

On the diplomatic front, the Oslo accords of 1993 brought a thaw to the loneliness of the diplomats, but the diplomatic goals were still the same – get countries to like us by providing assistance where we can and by explaining how we are trying to come to a peace agreement with the Palestinians – and anyway, they are worse than we are. In diplomacy, like in the military realm, deterrence was the tool and the goal was quiet. In both realms of foreign policy reacting to the situation was the main tactic as both the generals and diplomats guiding principle to move the country forward was “quiet and prosperity will eventually lead to peace”. The political class might have disagreed amongst themselves with the details, but both the right and the left were sure that actively seeking out victory in foreign policy was not in the cards.

On the military side, the assumption was that the Israeli Air Force could deter any major attack while “minor” terrorist attacks and occasional localized rocket attacks did not threaten the existence of the country. Diplomatically, there were goals like having the U.S and other countries move their embassy to Jerusalem or moderating the inevitable anti-Israel resolutions in the UN and its agencies, but they did not seem to feel that the country had much to offer to the world around them or that Israel had any diplomatic heft so that was the sum of foreign policy.

The diplomats and politicians were circling the world with the thought that the more we meet people the less they will hate us. The politicians and diplomats forgot Lord Palmerston’s notion that countries “have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow.” The military leaders lost interest in protecting the people, forgetting that in a democratic country individuals count even if the end of their individual lives are not “existential” to the country.

What has October 7^th taught us and how do we move forward in our international and security affairs? We will go back to the main theme again and that is the “Jewish people and Israeli persons (Israeli, because there are non-Jewish citizens who need the protection and care of Israel’s security and foreign policies). The main discussion has been about the defense concept, the “conceptzia” in Anglicized Hebrew, where one could deter one’s enemies with a combination of walls, destruction of buildings and providing them with a “good life”. Protecting the people seemed to be secondary as the entire south spent weeks nearly every year in their safe rooms and shelters. Even in the year after October 7, the northern towns were sitting ducks to Hezbollah fire with no attempt to take the fight to their territory. The idea that in a democratic country the military strategy was to allow one’s citizens to be shot at by a foreign power on a regular basis is a strategy that cares about ideas and concepts of peace and land but not about the lives of one’s citizens.

Even in the north, where most of the pre-October 7 military planning occurred, there was an understanding that Hezbollah would be able to conquer some border communities – but that they would eventually be pushed back. Besides the defeatist attitude of the generals, it amazes that these same military minds could not imagine what would happen to these communities under the occupation of Hezbollah – and the politicians that approved these plans did not understand the psychological harm to its own citizens of allowing the enemy conquer its towns and the euphoria that would occur in Arab and Moslem lands who want to destroy Israel.

But we are not here to go through the failures but rather move forward with the reality that October 7 has presented us. Simcha Goldin, who fought for 12 years for the return of his son from the hands of Hamas, spoke during that time (and still does) about a return to values. This goes to the heart of where we need military doctrine to go. A value-full doctrine starts with the value of the lives of a country’s along with victory over one’s enemies. What a military doctrine post-October 7 cannot say is that we will allow our towns to be occupied and we will allow homes to be damaged by rockets or drones or anti-tank rockets, that we will allow our citizens and soldiers to be shot at so long as the “quiet” can last for a few months or even years.

Pre-October 7 deterrence meant that both sides were deterred, post-October7 deterrence can only mean that Israel deters its enemies by taking the military initiative and not only reacting. The value of the safety and comfort of all citizens needs to be at the center of Israel’s military doctrine. Victory over enemies is the only thing that can ensure that, as we know now (but should have known then).

As for Israel’s vital interests, one must be the fate of Jews around the world. That has military and diplomatic angles. Antisemitism cannot be tolerated in “allied” countries and both the Mossad and the foreign ministry must be activated to fight it. While it might not be acceptable for one to operate a spy network in an “allied” country, once antisemitism becomes rampant and Jews lives and livelihoods are at stake, a military response is warranted. That is not to mean tanks and jets and drones, but Mossad operations that put fear into antisemites need be planned and activated.

Diplomatically, simple protests by the foreign ministry will not suffice. The government must make it known, via whatever non-military power it has, that antisemitism is not acceptable. If that means recalling ambassadors or making certain diplomats persona non-grata or if that means creating a real diplomatic crisis, so be it. Antisemitism of the type formed after October 7 needs to be fought as terrorism is – on multiple fronts.

Regarding foreign policy in general, Israel has never established, even informally, its “vital national interests”. The post-October 7 world is forcing Israel to do what it ignored for the last 80 years.

Here is a modest proposal of key points of Israel’s national interests. Obviously these need to be fleshed out (maybe in a future piece) and certainly these points themselves can be debated. The problem is – Israel has never had this debate. Here is a start:

– Free movement of Israel’s people and goods throughout the world.

– Support and defense of diaspora Jewish communities wherever they are.

– Support and defense of non-Israeli communities of Israel’s minority groups – for example, Druze, Bahai, Circassian.

– Unrelenting and unapologetic defense of the country’s borders, citizens and infrastructure.

– Defense of its Jewish and democratic traditions, freedoms and values.

– Unrelenting fight against terrorism against Israeli citizens, diaspora Jews and allied countries.

– Establishment of alliances that support Israel’s national interests.

– Self-reliance on matters of national importance such as the defense industry, food and energy production.

The above points are just that – broad points. There is no expectation and there should be no expectation that everyone should agree on the details. For example, “defense of borders” might mean different things to different people, but the argument should only be on what those borders are and not on if Israel ought to vigorously defend its borders. So too, with the “Jewish and democratic traditions” and each point above. But disagreement on the details of the main points is different than disagreement on the outline of Israel’s national interests.

As we have stated, Israel’s security and foreign policies have mostly been reactive over the past few decades. We can blame the right or the left and anyone we don’t agree with, but the main problem has been a lack of understanding by the country’s decision makers of Israel’s national interests. Once Israel understands what that is, it can act pro-actively to further its own interests and not only to react against localized or even globalized threats to the country and its well-being.

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/

The Challenge of October 7: Part 1 – Introduction

July 21, 2026

by Ira Slomowitz with No Comment Behavioral Sentiment Exclusive Content Featured Highlights Ira Slomowitz Risk Management Uncategorized World

Cynicism and Wake Up Calls: World War I, Vietnam, October 7th

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

Europe and the UK had WWI, the United States had Vietnam. Israel had the birth of the post-Zionist left in the wake up call that was the Yom Kippur War, and now (learning that the wake up call did not last) the events of October 7 have demanded that the country face new challenges – intellectually, politically and socially.

The Challenge of October 7: Part 1 – Introduction

World War I and Vietnam gave birth to the cynicism and inferiority complex to Europe and the United States respectively that has reached its nadir in the contemporary West. The utter lack of self-confidence in the traditions, virtues and ideas that moved the West forward from ancient Athens and Jerusalem to the Middle Ages to the enlightenment and on to the computer age. As technology moved forward, the ideas that underpinned it retreated to a nihilistic denial of the monotheistic idea that is the basis of all Western life.

Today’s engineers, physicists, humanists and social scientists miss the historical arc that moves from Plato and Aristotle’s break from paganism and the Jewish intellectual monotheistic heritage from late Biblical and post-Biblical times through the Church Fathers and the medieval Jewish, Christian and Moslem thinkers to our current times. The bits and bytes of the computer age didn’t just happen to be created in this cultural milieu. That is not to say that the monotheistic religions over the past 2,500 years have not held back important thinkers, caused wars and acted (shall we say, pagan-like?) over this time. They have. Each of the monotheistic religions have something to atone for, as do great Eastern religions – Hinduism, Buddhism and Confucianism in their various forms. And no one can deny that in addition to freedom and scientific advances, the Western tradition also created evils such as fascism, Nazism and communism.

Racism, slavery and misogyny existed throughout history in all cultures and while it was the Judeo-Christian tradition that finally ended at least the “acceptance” of these practices, they seem to rear their ugly heads again and again. We see that in the rebound of antisemitism in polite society.

The fundamentalists of all religions and ideologies unable to live with the belief that what they hold dear can be challenged and therefore we have before us various post-modern narratives instead of historical honesty. In my own religion, the fundamentalists go so far as to deny that a great rabbi ever visited a Jewish library and read the stories of a non-religious Jewish writer. The hagiography and insistence that “the greats” never sinned is part and parcel of the fundamentalist narrative and is due at least as much to the same loss of self-confidence that the secular world has endured as it is to blind belief. On the other side, we have “great” historians who create theories that belittle ancient truths with as much scientific proof as the ancient traditions themselves.

In Israel, as we stated before, the Yom Kippur War was the shock that told the elites that maybe they were mistaken in their Zionism and that a new post-Zionist, post-nationalist, European style country is what should replace the pioneering, self-sacrificing, idealistic country that had been built. They looked at Western Europe and saw a peaceful, prosperous continent and wanted to copy it. What they ignored of course was the beginnings of a demographic crisis, the total dependence for their defense on the United States, and most importantly a loss of creativity and energy that comes with the cynicism and exhaustion of a continent that went through two world wars and was free only because outside powers fought their occupiers and tormentors. Half the continent was still under occupation of course in 1945, but that did not affect the post-Zionist worship of the free half then under the nihilistic force of post-modernism.

After the Yom Kippur War, the Israeli establishment and not only the establishment was ready to move on from the Zionism and Judaism that formed the basis of the Jewish and democratic state in order to move it from its pariah-hood in its own neighborhood. The lure of peace and stability and the hope of a comfortable future was put in the hands of those who felt it was Israeli pride and self-respect that was the reason why the country could not live in peace with its neighbors. Shimon Peres, the tactician, par excellence, who was more responsible for building up the IDF than any other single person, decided to turn into a strategist and went so far as to oppose the study of history in schools. Only forward-looking people need apply.

October 7 has brought the country to another crisis of confidence, but the consensus that is being established is neither a return to the post-Six Day War euphoria nor the post Yom Kippur War depression. Over the coming few days we will examine the intellectual, political, military, diplomatic, cultural, social and economic changes that the post-October 7 country is forcing on the old leadership of both the left and right, the religious, fundamentalist and secular. The current election battle is being fought along the old lines, but the country is moving away from them. It could be that the change will come in this October election, but it may take more time until the leadership is changed and the discussion moves from the old battle lines to new, unknown disagreements.

Over the next few days, we will examine the changes that need to happen in order for Israel to deal with the trauma and, dare we say, opportunities that the failure of October 7 has brought.

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

Perception Over Fact: Iran as the Savior of Beirut

June 3, 2026

by Ira Slomowitz with No Comment Behavioral Sentiment Commodities Exclusive Content Featured Highlights India Ira Slomowitz Risk Management Uncategorized World

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: 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

What Do the Markets Say?

April 7, 2026

by Ira Slomowitz with No Comment Assets Behavioral Sentiment Central Banks Equities Exclusive Content Featured Highlights Federal Reserve, Interest Rates Financial Institutions Investing Ira Slomowitz Risk Management World

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”.

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.

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

March 23, 2026

by Ira Slomowitz with No Comment Assets Exclusive Content Featured Highlights Ira Slomowitz Risk Management World

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.

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

March 17, 2026

by Ira Slomowitz with No Comment Assets Behavioral Sentiment Business Commodities Exclusive Content Featured Highlights Financial Institutions Ira Slomowitz Risk Management World

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.

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: What Victory Looks Like, Part 1 – The Economy

March 16, 2026

by Ira Slomowitz with No Comment Assets Behavioral Sentiment Exclusive Content Featured Highlights Ira Slomowitz Risk Management Uncategorized World

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.

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

End of Defeatism and a Return to Victory

March 10, 2026

by Ira Slomowitz with No Comment Assets Behavioral Sentiment Exclusive Content Featured Highlights Financial Institutions India Investing Ira Slomowitz Risk Management World

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.

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

Market Volatility: Structure, Geo-Politics and Culture

February 17, 2026

by Ira Slomowitz with No Comment Behavioral Sentiment Exclusive Content Featured Highlights Financial Institutions Investing Ira Slomowitz Major Global Equity Indices Risk Management Speculators World

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.

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

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

January 5, 2026

by Ira Slomowitz with No Comment AMT Markets Behavioral Sentiment Featured 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.

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/

Related article of interest by Ira Slomowitz https://www.angrymetatraders.com/post/u-s-national-security-regional-alliances-europe

Angry Meta Traders

Angry Meta Traders

Posts tagged: Ira Slomowitz

Can An Economic D-Day Win the War?

Only Along with Military Might in Order to Avoid Stalemate

The Challenge of October 7: Part 4 – The Political and Legal System

Towards a Convenantal Framework

The Challenge of October 7: Part 3 – Security and Foreign Policy

Towards a Definition of Israel's National Interests

The Challenge of October 7: Part 1 – Introduction

Cynicism and Wake Up Calls: World War I, Vietnam, October 7th

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

Perception Over Fact: Iran as the Savior of Beirut

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

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

What Do the Markets Say?

Ambivalence Rules the Day

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

Iran: What Losing Looks Like

Who is Losing Militarily, Technologically, Economically and Diplomatically?

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

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

Missiles, Drones, the Straits and Regime Change

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

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

Ridding the World of the Islamic Republic Price Premium

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

End of Defeatism and a Return to Victory

The Iran War Brings a new Strategy Against Tyrants

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

Market Volatility: Structure, Geo-Politics and Culture

Why the (Free) World is so Confused and Depressed

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

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

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

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Archives

Categories