Iran: la guerre de trop?

This summary explores the geopolitical and economic ramifications of the recent military escalation in the Middle East, based on the discussion between the speakers at the Institut des Libertés. **A Decisive Military Escalation** The discussion begins with the recent joint U.S.-Israeli bombardment of Iran. This action triggered an immediate and widespread response from Tehran. Within two hours, Iran launched strikes across the Gulf region, targeting not only Israel and American bases but also Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, and parts of Iraq. Notably, Oman was spared, serving as a primary escape route for those fleeing by land. A major military milestone noted by the speakers is the assassination of Ali Khamenei, Iran's Supreme Leader. While the first attempt on a head of state earlier in the year was unsuccessful, this successful strike demonstrates a high level of intelligence regarding the regime's leadership. Despite this loss, the speakers observe that the Iranian regime does not yet appear significantly weakened, though its legitimacy is now in question as it operates under a "war council" where power is determined by whoever holds the most influence. **The Strategy of Regime Change** Donald Trump’s primary war aim has been clarified: the total end of the Iranian theocratic regime. By calling on Iranian protesters to seize this moment, the U.S. administration has signaled that it is no longer interested in temporary peace or nuclear negotiations. The speakers argue that Iran has acted as a regional "troublemaker" for decades, funding groups like Hamas and Fatah. Therefore, the goal is to "extirpate" the theocracy to allow the Middle East to become a normal zone for investment and daily life. The conflict has moved to an extreme "all or nothing" phase, compared by the speakers to the Battle of the Bulge. There is no longer room for middle-ground diplomacy. The outcome will likely result in one side being completely defeated—either the U.S.-Israeli alliance or the Iranian regime. If the regime falls, the speakers foresee two possibilities: a transition to a normal government or a descent into "Libyan-style" chaos. However, even chaos is viewed as preferable to a functional theocratic state with the capacity to cause large-scale regional damage. **Economic Risks and Resource Scarcity** The conflict presents a severe threat to global energy supplies. Iran's strikes on civilian infrastructure, such as a major Saudi refinery producing 500,000 barrels a day, highlight the difficulty of defending sprawling economic assets compared to compact military bases. Furthermore, the potential closure of the Strait of Hormuz by Iranian mines poses a catastrophic risk. While the world has about a year’s worth of oil reserves, gas reserves are much thinner. Europe and Taiwan only have about three months of gas supply, and prices have already surged. The speakers emphasize that while tankers might risk transit for high pay, liquid natural gas (LNG) carriers are unlikely to do so because a single strike would cause a massive explosion. This creates an exogenous shock to the global economy. Trump has reportedly set a four-to-five-week goal for resolving the conflict to minimize this damage, but the speakers remain skeptical of such short timelines, noting that wars often last years beyond their initial projections. **The Evolution of Warfare: Drones and Starlink** A significant portion of the discussion focuses on the shift in military doctrine toward "affordable mass." Moving away from the American "exquisite platform" model (expensive, high-tech machinery), the current conflict mirrors the Russo-Ukrainian war’s reliance on cheap, mass-produced drones. Iran’s Shahed-136 drones, costing between $20,000 and $50,000, have forced the U.S. to adapt. The U.S. has now developed its own version of these drones, costing roughly $35,000 per unit. These drones are integrated with the Starlink satellite network, allowing operators to maintain control even in environments with heavy electromagnetic interference or jamming. This technological adaptation is crucial because traditional anti-drone measures, like signal jammers, are ineffective against satellite-linked guidance. The speakers note that the side that can destroy the opponent's munitions stockpiles first will likely prevail, as both sides face a looming shortage of anti-aircraft missiles. **Financial Adaptation and Domestic Politics** From an investment perspective, the speakers advocate for an "Aristotelian" approach: observing the world as it is and adapting rather than making moral judgments. They reveal that their investment strategy, which included a 25% allocation to energy stocks, has protected their portfolio from the market volatility caused by the conflict. While most markets are suffering, their energy-heavy positions have grown, proving that financial survival depends on anticipating these "shocks to the waterline." Finally, the speakers touch upon U.S. domestic politics. They suggest that Trump’s intervention is a gamble ahead of the 2026 midterms. While some view the operation as unpopular, the speakers argue that the Democratic opposition lacks an authentic, unifying figure to capitalize on this. They criticize the "incompetence" of the current political class in both the U.S. and Europe, suggesting that the public feels increasingly unrepresented. In conclusion, the speakers suggest that if Trump succeeds in "pacifying" the Middle East by removing the Iranian threat, it could lead to the eventual withdrawal of U.S. carrier groups and a structural reduction in military spending—the "Fortress America" ideal. For now, they advise individuals to focus on protecting their own savings and preparing for a period of intense global instability.