Join Us at the 2023 World Economic Conference in Orlando, Florida!

? Dates: November 17, 18, and 19 ? Location: Orlando, Florida, USA (or tune in from home with our virtual ticket options)

Are you ready to unlock the future of economics and finance? Prepare for an unforgettable World Economic Conference experience in sunny Orlando, Florida! This premier event is your gateway to insights, networking, and valuable resources that will supercharge your understanding of the global economy.

?️ What’s Included for In-Person Attendees:

1. Event Admission: Enjoy reserved seating assigned based on the order of ticket sales, ensuring you have a prime view of every presentation.
2. Presentation Slides: Gain access to the presentation slides from all speakers, allowing you to delve deeper into the topics discussed.
3. Video Recording: Can’t make it to a session? No worries! You’ll receive access to video recordings of all conference presentations, so you can catch up at your convenience.
4. WEC Event App: Connect with the conference on a whole new level. Access presentation slides, bonus reports, recordings, and more via the official WEC Event App.
5. Bonus Conference Materials: Get a package of bonus conference-related materials, including exclusive bonus reports and videos (as provided by Martin Armstrong).
6. Morning Information Sessions: Don’t miss out on important morning information sessions, screened on-site in the meeting room on Saturday and Sunday.
7. Networking Opportunities: Exclusive access to the Event App Networking Feature allows you to connect with fellow attendees, both in-person and virtual, fostering valuable professional relationships.
8. Culinary Delights: Savor delicious breakfast and lunch on Saturday and Sunday, prepared to keep you energized throughout the day.
9. Cocktail Reception: Kick off the conference in style at our Friday evening cocktail reception. Meet and mingle with fellow attendees while enjoying refreshing drinks.
10. Swag Bag: As a token of our appreciation, each in-person attendee will receive a swag bag filled with goodies, including an Armstrong Economics notebook, pen, and an event collector’s mug!

Unable to travel? We also have two different ticket options for those wishing to attend virtually! 

Don’t miss this opportunity to be part of a global gathering of economic and financial minds. Secure your spot at the World Economic Conference in Orlando, Florida, and gain the knowledge, connections, and resources you need to thrive in the world of finance and economics.

Space is limited, so act now and reserve your seat! Visit our Events page to register and join us in sunny Orlando this November.

Now available at all major retailers!

The eBook will be available shortly.

The second edition of “The Plot to Seize Russia – The Untold History” is now available for purchase in paperback and hardcover on Amazon and Barnes and Noble. The ebook will be available shortly.

Book description:

“Take care of Russia,” Boris Yeltsin said as he departed his presidency in August 1999. These words were directed at current Russian president, Vladimir Putin. Yeltsin specifically picked Putin as his predecessor to prevent the takeover of Russia.

So, who was Yeltsin warning against? Newly declassified documents from the Clinton Administration prove that there was a plot to rig the Russian election of 2000. These never-before-seen documents confirm numerous attempts to implement pro-Western policies using the Russian oligarchy headed by Boris Berezovsky.

On the other side were the communists who desired a return to the glory days of the Soviet Union. As one of the largest international hedge fund managers, author Martin Armstrong found himself in the middle of perhaps the greatest espionage, or attempt at a regime change for Russia, in modern history.

The Plot to Seize Russia pulls back the curtain to expose the most extraordinary attempt to seize power in modern history, but with the pen rather than armies. These declassified documents reveal a plot that has altered our thinking about the relations between the United States and Russia. The thirst for power comes seething through every line of these papers that alter our perception of reality, change the course of history, and now threaten us with World War III.

Seabed 2030 is a global initiative launched in 2017 by the Nippon Foundation and GEBCO, operating under the International Hydrographic Organization and UNESCO’s Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission, with the stated goal of mapping the entire ocean floor by 2030 and compiling that data into a single global grid, drawing on governments, private industry, academic institutions, and international agencies to build what is effectively the most comprehensive database of the seabed ever attempted.

I discussed how China is actively mapping the ocean floor for wartime data. The funding for Seabed 2030 comes from a handful of powerful institutions, governments, and globalist agencies. The primary financial backing comes from Japan’s Nippon Foundation, which committed tens of millions of dollars to initiate the project and continues to fund its operations through structured payments distributed via the International Hydrographic Organization. Additional support comes from government agencies such as NOAA, international bodies like UNESCO under the UN Ocean Decade framework, and a growing network of corporate and philanthropic partners including Fugro, Schmidt Ocean Institute, and other private-sector contributors that provide vessels, technology, and data collection capabilities, creating a hybrid system where public, private, and international governance structures converge around a single dataset.

People are told this is about science, climate, and sustainability. Yet, when you follow the project’s structure and the concentration of funding and control, it becomes clear that this is not simply research. Still, the construction of a global information system managed through institutions that are not accountable to any single electorate, which is always how these initiatives are framed when they are intended to operate above national jurisdiction.

The scale alone should raise attention because this is not incremental research but a rapid buildout of strategic infrastructure, with ocean floor mapping increasing from roughly 6 percent at the project’s inception to over 27 percent by 2025, representing millions of square kilometers of newly mapped terrain in a short period, which demonstrates coordinated acceleration rather than passive discovery.

What is never emphasized is that seabed data is not neutral, because it has direct military application. China is conducting similar mapping operations specifically to prepare for submarine warfare, since understanding seabed topography, currents, and acoustic conditions determines submarine stealth, detection, and positioning, meaning that whoever possesses the most detailed mapping controls the underwater domain in any future conflict.

At the same time, nearly all global communications rely on subsea cables and critical energy infrastructure runs across the ocean floor, so mapping the seabed is also about identifying and potentially controlling the arteries of the global economy, which transforms what is presented as environmental mapping into strategic intelligence.

The structure of this project follows a familiar model where governments, multinational corporations, NGOs, and “philanthropic foundations” are integrated into a single framework, with data centralized into global repositories such as the GEBCO grid, which gradually shifts influence toward those who define standards, control access, and determine how that data is used, and history shows that once such centralized systems are established, their function expands beyond their original stated purpose.

I have said many times that global initiatives are rarely built for one reason, and this is no different, because the same data being marketed for climate modeling, biodiversity, and the so-called blue economy is also the foundation for military planning, resource exploration, and infrastructure control, and in a period where geopolitical tensions are rising into what the ECM has identified as a war cycle, it is naive to assume that mapping the entire seabed is purely humanitarian.

This is not simply about science or climate, but about building the informational foundation for the next phase of global power, where control of the seabed will influence military positioning, communications, energy systems, and ultimately economic dominance, and once that infrastructure is complete, the justification for how it is used will follow as it always has throughout history.

The latest data confirms what we have been building toward for months, as mortgage demand has now dropped sharply with interest rates rising to their highest levels since October, with the Mortgage Bankers Association reporting that the average 30-year fixed mortgage rate climbed to 6.43% and total application activity fell 10.5% in a single week, including a 14.6% collapse in refinancing and a 5.4% decline in purchase applications, which reflects not just a slowdown but a clear contraction in housing demand.

This is not happening in isolation because mortgage rates are tied directly to the 10-year Treasury, which has surged alongside oil prices as the war environment intensifies, with crude rising from roughly $75 to $100 per barrel following the escalation with Iran and the disruption of flows through the Strait of Hormuz, which in turn has pushed yields higher and forced markets to abandon expectations of rate cuts this year.

What you are witnessing is exactly what I have warned about repeatedly, where geopolitical events drive capital flows and interest rates far more than domestic policy decisions, and the idea that central banks control the economy is once again being exposed as a myth because the Federal Reserve cannot lower rates when inflation pressures are being driven externally through energy markets and war.

The housing market is always one of the first places this shows up because it is the most interest rate sector of the economy, and when rates rise even modestly, affordability collapses, which is why we are seeing buyers step back and refinancing vanish almost immediately. There is no incentive to refinance at higher rates and no ability for new buyers to justify elevated monthly payments.

At the same time, beneath the surface there are clear signs of stress building, as searches for “help with mortgage” have surged to levels even higher than the 2008 financial crisis, indicating that while defaults have not yet exploded, the concern among homeowners is rising rapidly due to higher costs across the board, from energy to insurance to taxes, which are all squeezing disposable income.

This is how a cycle turns because it does not begin with mass defaults but with declining confidence and rising anxiety, which then translates into reduced demand, slower transactions, and eventually price pressure as the market adjusts to a new reality.

Even when rates decline slightly, demand has remained weak because the underlying issue is not just rates but affordability and economic uncertainty, with housing activity already sluggish for years and home prices still elevated relative to income, meaning that the system has been stretched and is now vulnerable to external shocks.

What is taking place in the Strait of Hormuz right now is not simply a disruption to shipping, but a transformation of a natural chokepoint into a political weapon, and this is exactly what history shows always happens when a strategic passage falls under the control of a single power during a period of war.

Iran has now effectively asserted control over the Strait, restricting access, threatening vessels, and even considering or reportedly imposing transit fees on tankers, with some reports indicating charges as high as $2 million per vessel for passage, which turns one of the most critical points of global trade into a toll route under geopolitical control rather than a neutral international waterway.

Roughly 20% the world’s oil supply passes through this narrow channel, along with a substantial portion of global liquefied natural gas, meaning any disruption immediately impacts energy markets, inflation, and ultimately the global economy.

What has unfolded is not just tension but a near shutdown, with ship traffic collapsing, vessels being attacked, insurance costs surging, and many operators refusing to transit altogether due to the risk of drones, mines, and missile strikes, while others only pass under specific conditions approved by Iran, often tied to political alignment.

Iran has made it clear that access is no longer unconditional, stating that only “non-hostile” vessels may pass. This introduces a new dimension in which global trade is filtered through geopolitical loyalty.

Now add the idea of a transit tax and you begin to see the real picture, because this is no longer just about restricting access but monetizing control, turning geography into revenue while simultaneously exerting leverage over nations dependent on energy flows. This is precisely how strategic chokepoints have been used throughout history from the Suez Canal to the Bosporus.

Events of this nature drives volatility, because when a critical supply route becomes unstable, capital begins to shift rapidly into safe havens.  Inflationary pressures build, hence why you are seeing immediate reactions across global markets as oil surges and bond yields follow.

The key point is that this is not temporary in the way the press tends to frame it, because once a chokepoint is weaponized, it never fully returns to neutrality, since the precedent has been set that access can be restricted, priced, or controlled based on political conditions, and that permanently alters the risk calculation for global trade.

This also exposes the fragility of the entire system. A single narrow passage can disrupt nearly a fifth of the global energy supply, showing how concentrated and vulnerable the system has become.

Controlling trade routes has always been one of the most powerful tools in geopolitical conflict, and once that tool is actively deployed, it indicates that the situation has moved beyond rhetoric into structural change.

QUESTION: I understand that Socrates is projecting the future from historical data. It is not your personal opinion and you do not incorporate prophecy since each religion also has different stories of end days. I am just curious, Socrates with all the arrays are projecting 2032 as does your Economic Confidence Model. It appears looking at the arrays across the board, they have predicted this war with amazing accuracy and they did in picking Ukraine more than a year in advance and the October 7 Hammas attack on Israel. You have Iran peaking out in 2027 and Israel looking rather grim post-2028. Since you see this Armageddon unfolding not as divine will, but deliberate human intervention, does that make 2032 the fulfillment of these prophecies?

Richard

ANSWER: This is a question that I have always found challenging. Can a prophecy be fulfilled because people deliberately attempt to force it to take place? History is filled with periods where the belief in an imminent, world-ending battle of Armageddon has surged, often during times of profound social crisis, war, or religious upheaval. These “rising beliefs” are usually not isolated but are part of broader apocalyptic and millenarian movements. However, the first record of such a final battle is not from the Bible, but from Iran – Persia.

The core concept of a final cosmic battle has ancient roots. Many historians trace this worldview back to the Persian prophet Zoroaster (around 1500 BC), who spoke of a cosmic struggle between good and evil ending in a perfect new world. This idea deeply influenced Jewish thought during times of great oppression, such as the Babylonian exile and the persecution by Greek rulers. The Book of Daniel (written around 167 BC) is a key text from this period, promising that God would soon overthrow the evil kingdoms oppressing the Jews. Early Christianity emerged from this same apocalyptic Jewish context, with followers believing Jesus’s return was imminent.

Some early Christians called Nero (54-68AD) the Antichrist because his brutal persecution of Christians as the scapegoat blaming them for the great fire of Rome in 64AD. After the Great Fire of Rome, Nero drastically reduced the silver purity of coins to fund reconstruction . This severe economic crisis and debasement fueled unrest and was interpreted by early Christians as a sign of a corrupt world power, fitting the profile of the “beast” from Revelation. There was even the claim that he would return from the dead, and a possible hidden code in the Book of Revelation (the number 666) made him fit the profile of the ultimate evil figure predicted in the Bible. Nero’s full Greek and Latin name was Neron Caesar. In Hebrew, it is written as נרון קסר (Nron Qsr). Adding the numerical value of the shorten name Nero with Caesar equaled 666. This was a popular among some early Christians.

The Jewish Rebellion 69-73AD saw Jewish silver coins issued displaying a chalice with the Paleo-Hebrew inscription “For the Redemption of Zion.” The reverse was a lulav (palm frond) and etrog (citron) used in Sukkot. They were minted during the Roman siege of Jerusalem, just before the Temple’s destruction. The inscription shifted from earlier coins reading “For the Freedom of Zion” to “Redemption,” reflecting a shift from political hope to a desperate prayer for divine, messianic salvation as the end drew near. “For the Redemption of Zion” coins are direct archaeological evidence of a population actively anticipating the end as they knew it.

The Early Middle Ages (c. 400–1050 AD) Fall of the Western Roman Empire, rise of Islam, political instability A dominant force in politics and religion; belief in the coming Antichrist and Last World Emperor. Recent scholarship shows that apocalyptic expectation was a powerful part of mainstream political ideologies for centuries. There was a genuine expectation surrounding the first millennium after Christ. In 999AD, Pope Sylvester II presided over a dramatic midnight mass in Rome as pilgrims trembled, anticipating the end.

The “Agnus Dei” silver penny was a unique moment in English history—a king setting aside his own image to plead for heavenly help during a national emergency. King Æthelred II did issue the remarkable “Agnus Dei” penny that replaced his portrait with the Lamb of God, This coin is one of the rarest and most unusual in English history. Instead of a portrait of the king, the front side (obverse) depicts the Agnus Dei (Lamb of God), and the back (reverse) shows a dove, representing the Holy Spirit.

The Millennium Theory has been argued that people in 1000 AD feared the end of the world was approaching because who;le numbers often have psychological impact. Some religious scholars speculated on the date of a widespread religious anticipation. Æthelred’s coin was a practical and spiritual weapon. Yet it has also been argued that it was issued against a very real invasion by the Viking army of 1009. They speculate that the coin was minted around Michaelmas (September 29th) in 1009, nearly a decade after the year 1000. It was created during a moment of extreme national crisis when a massive Viking army led by Thorkell the Tall invaded England. That made it a “Heavenly” Call to Action: In response, King Æthelred and his council met in Bath and initiated a program of national penance and prayer. It is believed to have intended to invoke divine intervention, essentially asking God to help the English when earthly measures were failing. Removing the king’s portrait to feature only religious imagery was a radical sign of humility and desperation.

High & Late Middle Ages (11th–16th Century) Social upheaval, economic inequality, Crusades, plague Revolutionary movements led by “rootless poor”; belief they were the saints destined to destroy the Antichrist.

Many Protestant Reformers, including Martin Luther, John Calvin, and Thomas Cranmer, identified the Pope as the Antichrist. This claim was a formal accusation rooted in their interpretation of Scripture and a reaction to what they saw as a systemic abuse of power within the medieval Church. The Reformers believed the papacy matched the biblical description of the Antichrist found in passages like 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4, which speaks of a “man of lawlessness” who “exalts himself above all that is called God.”

The famous claim that a pope fits the number 666, but unlike the case of Nero, this claim has been factually debunked and is based on prejudice.
The idea centers on an unofficial Latin title for the pope, “Vicarius Filii Dei” (Vicar of the Son of God). Here is the calculation that some Protestant groups, particularly Seventh-day Adventists. The problem is that in Latin “U” is written as a “V” and there is no “W” either. Thus they calculated:
V, I, C, I, V, I, L, I, I, D, I 5 + 1 + 100 + 1 + 5 + 1 + 50 + 1 + 1 + 500 + 1 666

The Protestant Reformation (16th–17th Century) The splitting of Western Christendom. In the Modern Era (19th–20th Century) World wars, Cold War tensions, the founding of Israel Rise of new denominations (e.g., Seventh-day Adventists, Jehovah’s Witnesses) focused on Bible prophecy and current events.

Norman Cohn’s classic work, The Pursuit of the Millennium, documents how, between the end of every millennium results in apocalyptic prophecies that merge with social revolt. Poor and disenfranchised groups formed revolutionary movements, convinced they were the saints destined to destroy the Antichrist and usher in a new, egalitarian world.

The 19th and 20th centuries saw a significant revival of end-times belief, often tied to world events that were interpreted as fulfilling biblical prophecy. In the 1840s, William Miller led a movement in America that predicted Christ’s return in 1844. When this “Great Disappointment” failed, it gave rise to the Seventh-day Adventist Church, which developed complex teachings on the end times and Armageddon.

During the 20th century Cold War, this provided a powerful fuel for apocalyptic speculation. The creation of Israel in 1948 was seen by many dispensationalist Christians as a key sign preceding Armageddon. The Cold War’s nuclear threat added a new dimension of plausibility, and publications like the Detroit Jewish News in 1983 noted that “prophets of doom” found a platform during these crises, with Armageddon “again on the agenda.”

Armageddon has remained a potent concept throughout history, surfacing powerfully during times of crisis when the existing order seems to be collapsing. We are in a global recessionary trend that varies. With this Iran War, the greatest impact on fuel will be Europe and Asia. The United States get about 3-5%  of all fuel consumed from the Middle East. This is also why Saudi Ariba is cutting deals with China. We see tensions rising and we are looking at a Sovereign Debt Crisis even in the Middle East and Iran has shut down the Strait of Hormuz. We also see a serious debt crisis in Europe and all of this is coming to a head economically into 2032. So is this Armageddon? The computer does NOT show that this is the end of the world. However, we are looking for the power shift from the West to China.

QUESTION: You were the first to say the US was going through Pakistan, and there was a 15-point plane. You also said no peace is possible. Iran just rejected Trump’s 15-point plan. You also commented that the markets were reflecting a protracted war. Do you see any hope whatsoever?

PD

ANSWER: Indeed, Iran said it rejected any US ceasefire proposal and maintained attacks on Israel and Gulf Arab states. They are in the driver’s seat, and they know it. Not just that they control the Strait of Hormuz, but aside from oil, 30% of the fertilizer goes through there, and as we move into planting season, Iran is also keenly aware that it can cause a food crisis.

Look, I know the Neocon thinking process. They CANNOT think beyond the end of their nose and ALWAYS think they will win in a matter of days or weeks, simply because they control the largest military force. SIZE does not matter! They NEVER look at the other side. Iran would have to be insane to accept the 15-point plan, dealing a significant blow to Trump’s efforts to end a war that Netanyahu began suckering in Trump.

Trump’s 15-point peace plan stipulates that the Islamic Republic dismantle its main nuclear facilities and use a reduced missile arsenal in self-defense only, according to reliable sources, and Trump would lift sanctions. Tehran realizes that it cannot agree to a ceasefire when Netanyahu has any authority whatsoever. Iran wants guarantees that the US and Israel won’t resume their attacks, alongside reparations for war damages and recognition of its authority over the Strait of Hormuz.

In addition, Iran has REFUSED to even negotiate with Steve Witkoff or Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, both of whom are Jewish! For the life of me, why this dynamic duo would even dare to negotiate in the Middle is beyond me. This appears to be a very serious conflict of interest, regardless of whether it is true. Iran has insisted that it would deal only with J.D. Vance.

I believe Vice President J.D. Vance may travel to Pakistan for talks with Iran this weekend. Trump has said he hopes to reach an agreement by the end of the week. I would not hold my breath. Just as Netanyahu assassinated the Ayatollah and acted unilaterally, attacking their gas field, he does not care about the world economy, and CANNOT be trusted in any future peace deal. The only security Iran could possibly have is regime change in Israel, meaning Netanyahu is gone from the government.

When Allies Become Liabilities – Regime Change in Israel

What is perhaps more surprising and not yet in the press is that Netanyahu’s problems have intensified under the Trump administration, which was expected to provide unconditional support for his Iranian conquest. Recent sources report a deep frustration within Trump’s team regarding Netanyahu.

The question of Benjamin Netanyahu’s political survival and whether there is serious discussion about regime change in Israel represents one of the most sensitive and complex dynamics in current Middle Eastern geopolitics being discussed behind the curtain. The short answer is that there has been significant talk—both public and private—about the need for Netanyahu to be removed from power, and this discussion is coming not just from his domestic opponents but from surprising quarters, including elements within the American establishment, European governments, and even segments of the Israeli security apparatus.

But we must be precise about what we mean by “regime change.” This is not talk of military intervention or external overthrow. Rather, it is a discussion about using diplomatic pressure, conditioning aid and support, leveraging legal processes, and supporting domestic opposition to facilitate Netanyahu’s removal through ostensibly democratic means. The distinction matters, but the intention—removing a sitting leader perceived as an obstacle to broader policy objectives—is fundamentally the same.

Without Netanyahu’s removal, it is going to be extremely hard to convince Iran that Israel will not attack again or try to assassinate all of their leaders in another covert action.

China is now conducting one of the largest ocean mapping operations in modern history, sending dozens of research vessels across the Pacific, Indian, and Arctic Oceans to gather detailed data on the seabed, water temperature, salinity, and currents, and while this is being presented publicly as scientific research, naval experts are openly warning that this data is critical for submarine warfare against the United States and its allies.

The data being collected allows war submarines to navigate more effectively, avoid detection, and position themselves for both offensive and defensive operations, and more importantly it allows for the detection of enemy submarines because sound propagation in the ocean depends entirely on environmental conditions, which means whoever understands the ocean best controls the battlefield beneath it.

China has already deployed hundreds of sensors and is building what has been described as an underwater surveillance network, often referred to as an “Underwater Great Wall,” designed to monitor submarine movement and control access to key maritime regions. This is the same principle the United States used during the Cold War with its SOSUS system, but what we are seeing now is a far more advanced version integrated with modern technology.

The scale of this effort is what should concern policymakers. Reuters identified more than 40 research vessels operating over multiple years, systematically mapping strategic regions including waters near Taiwan, Guam, Japan, and the Malacca Strait, which is one of the most critical choke points for global trade. These are not random locations. These are future battle zones.

This ties directly into what I have been warning about regarding the shift into a war cycle. As confidence declines domestically, governments turn outward, and the preparation for war begins long before the first shot is fired. The Economic Confidence Model has been pointing to rising geopolitical tensions into this period, and what we are seeing now is the infrastructure of that conflict being built quietly beneath the surface.

Submarine warfare is fundamentally different from traditional warfare. It is about stealth, detection, and control of information. The side that controls the undersea environment controls communication cables, energy pipelines, and the movement of naval forces. Roughly 95% of global data travels through undersea cables, and those cables are vulnerable targets in any conflict scenario. This is why seabed warfare has become a central focus among major powers.

China is expanding its submarine fleet, including nuclear-powered submarines that provide greater range and endurance, and is integrating mapping data with surveillance systems to create a comprehensive picture of the underwater battlespace. The nation displayed their new submarines and underwater drones last year at its historic military parade where it wowed the world with its technological advances.

The United States has historically held the advantage in submarine warfare because of decades of accumulated knowledge about the ocean. That advantage is now being challenged directly. Mapping the ocean floor does not make headlines like missile tests or troop movements. But it is far more important because it determines who controls the environment in which submarines operate.

This is why the distinction between civilian and military research is meaningless in this context. China’s strategy of civil-military fusion means that scientific data is immediately available for military use. What is being collected today under the guise of research becomes tomorrow’s combat capability. Even Chinese researchers have openly stated their intention to transform scientific achievements into military applications.

The real issue is that this is happening while Western governments remain focused on short-term political concerns rather than long-term strategic positioning. Mapping the ocean floor may seem like a technical exercise, but it is in fact the foundation of modern naval warfare.The next conflict will not be decided solely by ships or aircraft. It will be decided by who understands the ocean best.

South Korean President Lee Jae Myung has now called for a nationwide energy-saving campaign, urging citizens to take shorter showers, reduce car usage, and adopt a list of government-defined conservation practices, while public institutions have been instructed to cut back on vehicle use and businesses with high energy consumption are being pressured to scale down operations, and Lee himself made clear the urgency by stating that the government must “mobilize all available resources” and act immediately rather than hesitate, which reveals how quickly policy shifts once a crisis narrative is established.

The justification is rooted in supply disruption tied to geopolitical tensions, particularly the near halt of tanker traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, which South Korea depends on for roughly 70% of its crude imports, and despite holding approximately 190 million barrels in reserves, officials have acknowledged that those reserves may not last even two months under current demand conditions, which exposes just how fragile the system has become after years of policy decisions that prioritized ideology over stable supply.

If this were simply about energy, then the solution would be focused on restoring supply and stabilizing markets, yet instead the burden is immediately shifted onto the people, which is always the telltale sign that governments are no longer managing the economy but are instead attempting to manage behavior, and this is where the climate narrative becomes relevant because it provides the perfect justification for telling people how to live under the guise of necessity.

I have said many times that climate change policies are part of a broader trend where governments seek oversight and influence over individual behavior. As we saw in the US with the Inflation Reduction Act, governments will request billions if not trillions all in the name of saving the planet. Once you begin dictating how long someone can shower, when they can drive, or how much energy they are allowed to consume, you are looking at tyrannical control measures.

The pattern is identical to what we saw during COVID, where the initial response was framed as temporary and necessary, followed by escalating guidance that quickly turned into mandates when compliance did not meet expectations, and South Korea is already signaling this trajectory by describing current measures as voluntary while leaving the door open for stricter enforcement, which is always how these policies evolve.

When governments lose the ability to influence outcomes through traditional economic tools, they turn toward direct intervention in society, and energy becomes one of the most effective levers since it underpins transportation, housing, and basic daily function. This is not about the normalization of control, because once the authority to regulate behavior is established under one crisis, it can be expanded and applied under another, and history shows that governments rarely relinquish powers once they have been obtained.

What we are witnessing is not simply an energy-saving campaign, but part of a larger structural change in how governments interact with their populations, and that shift is being driven not by necessity alone, but by the opportunity that crises provide to expand control.

Rumors are beginning to circulate that the government’s next control tactic will be energy lockdowns. I would not put anything past government.

The Neocons running the Trump administration, as always, are a complete failure when it comes to thinking strategically about Iran or even the Middle East in general. Emails we receive from industry colleagues often mix statements with reality, and uncertainty about the future of a conflict is causing historic supply disruptions and upending industry planning. If Trump declares victory and pulls back the U.S. military, Iran would then say that it owns the Strait and declare victory. Rumors have circulated that Iran would then impose a tax on any ship passing through the Strait, perhaps resulting in a resumption of this crisis.

The overall U.S. and Israeli strategic objectives for Iran remain questionable. What I do know is that there was a private phone call in which Netanyahu manipulated Trump, stressing that he could “make history” by toppling the Ayatollah regime and taking revenge for Iranian efforts to assassinate him, which was central in Trump’s decision to strike when he did.

The classic Neocon claim that America can fight a markedly limited war, and engage in airplane targetry, has never worked even once, and it only demonstrates their dishonest lack of strategy to sell these endless wars. Claiming that naval protection of ships is absurd, for that would prove an impossible challenge and leave major vulnerabilities for the US Navy. That is no more invincible than Israel’s Iron Dome.

Trump’s threats to target Iran’s energy sector over the Strait of Hormuz would have only escalated tensions if Iran had not reopened the Strait in 48 hours. He had to back down and then claim he was in talks with Iran, which they instantly denied. I have some info that Trump has gone to Pakistan to present a 15-point peace proposal, which may sidestep Netanyahu. However, I have sources who have also said IRAN will no longer deal with Steve Witkoff, or Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, both of whom are Jewish, and clearly a very serious affront to Iran and a major appearance of a conflict of interest. They have to be the worst possible people to negotiate with Iran, given the hatred that Netanyahu has publicly made clear about Iran.

Furthermore, the claims that the United States won the war against Iran within the first hour of military action and that the conflict quickly tilted in favor of the USA were also bravado. However, President Trump also said that American forces would remain deployed until the mission was complete. This has been proven to be just boastfulness and fake news. They also claimed that they destroyed most of Iran’s missile capacity. Yet, Iran launched waves of missiles at Israel on Tuesday, a day after U.S. President Trump said there had been “very good and productive” talks aiming at halting the war unleashed and unprovoked by the U.S. and Israel.

History is not going to come down in Trump’s favor. A year ago, in late March 2025, the U.S. Intelligence Community assessed that “Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and that [Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has not reauthorized the nuclear weapons program he suspended in 2003.” However, in a congressional hearing about that assessment, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard also said, “Iran’s enriched uranium stockpile is at its highest levels and is unprecedented for a state without nuclear weapons.” Trump instead used Netanyahu’s bogus claims. They never had a missile that could reach the United States, Europe, yes, but not the United States. That calls into question the Neocon/Netanyahu lies to start this war, just as the Weapons of Mass Destruction never existed in Iraq. They need to lie and create an immediate threat to circumvent Congress, and the last “war” was World War II. Everything else has been an abuse of executive power instigated by the Neocons. Trump is sending in troops, and Iran replied – come closer.

The Western press propaganda shows a ballistic missile being intercepted by Israel. What they fail to explain is that an Iranian Ballistic Missile costs $300,000 or less, while the Israeli interceptors cost $2-$3 million each. Israel typically launches at least 3 interceptors per Iranian missile, and some have said up to 6 interceptors have been fired. A Sling interceptor costs about $1 million each, and an Iron Dome interceptor costs $50,000 each. Iran is bleeding the West dry, and even Taiwan has expressed concern that the US is using its entire stockpile of cruise missiles, meaning they cannot be defended.

Reliable sources placed Iran as having over 3,000 ballistic missiles in preparation for this war with Israel, which they knew was coming. Some suspect that they could have increased that closer to 4,000. That does not even include the country’s burgeoning land-attack cruise missile force. Yet, Iran has fired over 400 ballistic missiles since the start of the current conflict, as of March 24th, which began on February 28th, 2026. The Western press claims that approximately 92% of these missiles have been intercepted by Israeli air defense systems.

The propaganda comes from the fact that on February 28th, Iran fired around 182 ballistic missiles in a single day. That number has since fallen to single digits. Drone attacks have followed a similar trajectory, dropping from over 200 to fewer than 20. Pete Hegseth claims Iran’s missile volume is “down 90%” and drone attacks have reduced by 95% that means they are running out. What we do know is that Iran has been stockpiling missiles for this endgame war. However, strategic assessments suggest Iran is playing it smart. Let the US and Israel run out of their missiles, and then they can flatten Israel for a final blow. Tehran appears to be adapting to the mounting reality of this war, and to survive, it must outlast its enemies.

This specific tactic is a variation of the classic “Fabian strategy”—wearing down an enemy through logistics and attrition—and its principles have been used effectively throughout history. This name goes back to the Second Punic War (218–201 BC) when Roman General Fabius Maximus avoided direct battle with Hannibal’s army, instead shadowing it and cutting its supply lines to exhaust the Carthaginian forces. The strategy neutralized Hannibal’s tactical advantages. When it was abandoned, Rome suffered the disastrous defeat at Cannae in 216BC.  The Roman Republic issued this gold stater in direct response to a national emergency. Hannibal crossed into Italy in 218BC, and the Roman gold stater was minted in the years that followed (circa 225–212 BC) to help finance the war effort.

It was during the monetary reform of 225BC that gold was also introduced to the Roman denominations for the first time. This gold stater incorporates the familiar Roman Janiform, while the reverse was made up of an oath-taking scene – Italian city-states swearing allegiance to Rome. These gold staters were extremely rare and did not form part of everyday circulation. Rather, these gold staters were used for very large transactions only and to impress the rest of the Italian city-states.

The propaganda is how they have degraded Iran militarily. This sounds similar to the story about Russia. Yet, Iran retains the ability to still send 8 waves of ballistic missiles targeting Israel to deplete their defenses, and still, they can attack ships from shore along a vast stretch of coastline in the wider region. The cost of that attack for Iran was perhaps $40 million, but the cost of defense to Israel was more like $1.5 billion in one incident.

The ONLY way to secure the Strait of Hormuz is to occupy it with boots on the ground. You will have to stage massive troops along the Strait for 50 miles on BOTH sides, plus you will have to penetrate inward 100 miles on each side. Then you will have to create a no-fly zone that must be patrolled and monitored 100% of the time. As long as Iran has the ability to impede the oil traffic and refinery production, plus 30% of the world’s fertilizer, they retain leverage that these so-called brilliant minds never took into account because they assumed that being the biggest military power secures victory.

Iran has anti-ship cruise missiles that could be fired off the back of a pickup truck that can go 100 miles. This is Iran’s Trump Card, and the Neocons, along with Netanyahu, painted an instant victory by simply killing the Ayatollah. They promise victory in just weeks, as they did in Iraq, which took 8 years.

Oil was roughly $73 right before the strikes on Iran started on February 28th, and even that price reflected an expectation of hostilities. The entire scheme of killing the Ayatollah is Netanyahu’s strategy, and it has never worked. The agreed aim of toppling Iran’s leaders and encouraging regime change has proven a complete failure, as it has in Afghanistan and Iraq.

I think anyone who knows Iran must also understand that this religious regime has been quite good at survival. There was no Plan B for an energy crisis because the Neocons/Netanyahu assumed instant victory. There was no strategic plan for even a short-term war, let alone a long-term one. I have warned that the strategy would be for Russia and China to use this war as their Proxy to drain the resources of the United States, as the US and NATO have used Ukraine against Russia. They cried foul when Russia provided targeting info to Iran, yet the US has been providing targeting objectives inside Russia to Ukraine. Turn this into a proxy war, drain the USA of its missiles, then by tying up the USA in this Middle East War, that frees Russia to destroy Ukraine outright and China to take Taiwan. Iran has already said that it invited Russia and China to establish bases in Iran. The Saudis have cut a deal with China to build a $5 billion drone plant inside Saudi Arabia. The Neocons are losing the Middle East with their one-sided, arrogant policies.

The bottom line is, Iran knows the intention of Netanyahu, and his objective is regime change, the total destruction of the Islamic State. It makes perfect sense that they realize this proves that there will NEVER be peace with Israel, and that this is a war Netanyahu began. Demonstrating any hope of peace will be just a delusion, for there will be another attack as long as the regime remains in power. Both sides are digging in their heels and see this as the fulfillment of prophecy.

So, we must face reality. The ONLY way this war would be over soon is the total destruction of Iran and the end of the Islamic Republic. There is no possibility of long-term peace without regime change. Trump may be looking for an off-ramp, but he has been played. Thus, any claim that negotiations will settle this religious war is not possible, and the markets are reflecting that over the long term. Even the 10-year interest rates are starting to rise overall in anticipation of a protracted war. Trump can forget a Nobel Prize for peace.

Perhaps the most fascinating question I have written about before is whether about one-third of the population sees this as Armageddon. But what makes this worse is that essentially both sides see this as the final battle, though in different ways and with important caveats. Trump is clueless as to what he stepped into, for Netanyahu has religious fanaticism behind his decision-making.

Netanyahu / Israeli-American Religious Right

Netanyahu has framed the war against Iran in explicitly biblical and messianic terms, rallying a political constituency that sees regional devastation as a holy mandate. When he invokes “the eternity of Israel,” many see that he’s signaling to those who see end-times warfare as a cosmic necessity.

Most concretely, on March 3rd, Netanyahu invoked the Torah shortly after strikes began, comparing Iran to the biblical Amalekites — ancient enemies the Torah commands must be remembered and confronted. “We read in this week’s Torah portion, ‘Remember what Amalek did to you.’ We remember – and we act.”

In 1 Samuel 15:2-3, God gives King Saul a specific, direct order to carry out this command. The prophet Samuel relays the message: “This is what the LORD Almighty says: ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys. ‘”

Back in 2024, in his Knesset speech, Netanyahu said: “I’ve been warning about Iran for 30 years.”  More recently, in portions of his speech not included in the official English translation, Netanyahu drew on Purim theology, saying: “In those days of Purim, the lot was cast, and the wicked Haman fell along with it. Even today, on the holiday of Purim, the lot was cast, and the end of the evil regime will also come.” When an adversary is cast as the reincarnation of an ancient, irredeemable evil, we must take note that the normal rules of war and human rights tend to evaporate in the minds of those operating within that framework. This was why Netanyahu moved to kill the Ayatollah, something not sanctioned by the rules of war.

Since the assassination of the Ayatollah was the very first act, and there can be no argument that he was a military target, this violated every principle of international law, which clearly demonstrates nobody gives a shit about anymore. Historically, customary international law granted heads of state immunity from the jurisdiction of other states for geopolitical stability. However, this immunity is procedural (preventing arrest or prosecution in foreign courts) rather than substantive (making them inviolable targets). Many nations (including the United States via Executive Orders, though these have been interpreted differently by different administrations) prohibit assassination. If there is no ongoing armed conflict between the state conducting the killing and the state of the target, killing a foreign head of state is NOT sanctioned. It constitutes an act of unlawful aggression, a violation of sovereignty, and likely an extrajudicial killing. Since that was the first act of war, it was outrageous and unlawful.

On the American side, US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth referred to Iran’s “prophetic Islamic delusions” at a Pentagon briefing, and it was reported that US military commanders were telling troops the war was a biblical step toward Armageddon. One soldier said his commander described Trump as “anointed by Jesus to light the signal fire in Iran,” according to Al Jazeera.

Iran / Shia “Mahdist” Eschatology

The Iranian side has its own parallel end-times theology that is, if anything, it is far more institutionalized. The Iranian regime considers its nation chosen by Allah to prepare the world for the return of the Twelfth Imam — the Mahdi. They believe that catastrophic world chaos and the defeat of their enemies, especially Israel, are prerequisites for this event. The founder of the Islamic Republic, Ayatollah Khomeini, designated Iran the “Vanguard of the Mahdi.”

Iran’s interpretation of Mahdism requires adherents to take proactive steps to usher in the Mahdi — most notably by initiating an apocalyptic showdown with America and Israel, which are called the “greater” and “lesser” satans.  Hardline clerics affiliated with the IRGC cite hadiths claiming the Jewish state will be destroyed before the Mahdi’s arrival, and that Shia Muslims will be on the side of the war against Jews prior to the Mahdi’s reappearance.

Iran’s new supreme leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, is reportedly “obsessed with the end of days.” Some Iranian leaders appear convinced this war may be the Malhama al-Kubra — the great apocalyptic battle against Western powers described in Islamic traditions — which would mean, from their perspective, surrender is literally unthinkable. This is what I have been warning about.

Why This Matters — and the Important Caveats

Most ordinary people on both sides don’t see it this way. Many Iranians are secular or deeply opposed to the regime. Most Israelis support the war for security, not messianic, reasons. Religious eschatology is largely the ideology of ruling elites and hardline factions on both sides, NOT populations. Nevertheless, strategic interests still drive decisions. Netanyahu’s stated war goals — destroying Iran’s nuclear program, and achieving regime change — are conventional strategic aims. Many Israeli analysts say his real endgame is “a heavily diminished Iran,” and that he needs something he can declare a victory on, especially given his corruption trials and political pressures.

The danger of this apocalyptic framing is that it REMOVES all logic of compromise. These leaders are using theological beliefs to justify action, mobilise political opinion, and leverage support claiming they are doing God’s will. When both sides enlist God, the space for negotiated exits become virtually impossible!

So, in short, the end-times framing is real, active, and being used rhetorically and ideologically by leadership on both sides — but it coexists with, and is often a cover for, conventional geopolitical and personal interests.

Any temporary ceasefire, even, if possible, does not solve this religious war when both sides see this as the end times.