# Translation: US-Israel-Iran Conflict at Day 18

The conflict among the United States, Israel, and Iran has entered its 18th day. Word came out this morning that Ali Larijani and his son from Iran died in strikes. At least from this round of conflict, Israel's style in precision strikes does indeed carry a sense of "ruthless and few words"—once they publicly claim to have eliminated someone, they typically actually do eliminate them. In contrast, Iran's top officials usually first deny similar news and then gradually confirm it, which also reflects from the sidelines the gap between the two sides in information warfare, intelligence capability, and organizational efficiency.

From hard power perspective, whether it's fighter jets, intelligence systems, or satellite reconnaissance, Iran struggles to directly match the US and Israel. However, the US also won't easily engage in full-scale ground warfare with Iran. The reason is straightforward: ground warfare means prolonged attrition, soldier casualties, and rising domestic anti-war sentiment. Facing election pressure, such costs are not worthwhile for the US government.

The truly deterrent card Iran holds is still the Strait of Hormuz. On one hand, it can use "blockading the strait" as a strategic threat. On the other hand, it's releasing signals: as long as its civilian facilities and oil field installations continue to be struck, it won't rule out further spillover of warfare to neighboring Gulf countries' energy facilities. The essence isn't hard fighting over absolute military power, but rather raising the war's cost as much as possible and transmitting regional risk to the global energy market.

For crude oil-producing nations like the US and Russia, rising oil prices aren't necessarily entirely bad in some respects. But from a macro perspective, crude increases equally push up inflation, ultimately feeding directly back to public opinion and votes. Crude oil is a special asset: it can drain liquidity from gold, silver, and other assets in the market, while carrying strong "self-destructive" properties. The higher the price, the more it suppresses the global economy. When consumption cools and the economy weakens, oil prices fall again due to declining demand.

Trump clearly sees this, which is why he's trying to pull allies into Strait of Hormuz escort operations, not even ruling out using the opportunity to strengthen control over this critical sea lane. However, the problem is that allies like Japan, South Korea, and NATO countries are unwilling to easily enter the arena. Allies usually hope to enjoy the security protection the US provides, but when high-risk situations actually arrive, they're unwilling to bear corresponding costs. This naturally infuriates Trump.

The core of NATO, ultimately, is still the US. In other words, the US is almost the pivot point for NATO's operation. After the Cold War, the international landscape was long summarized as "one superpower and multiple powers," with that "superpower" being the US. The two most important pillars for US hegemony maintenance are: one, the dollar system; two, military alliances and overseas base networks. The former lets it influence the world economically, the latter lets it achieve long-range military projection.

Therefore, current crude oil futures prices may not completely reflect real spot goods and future situations. War may end quickly, or it may evolve into prolonged attrition. But one point is relatively clear: as long as oil prices continue surging toward extremes, the global economy will likely look poor. If we really wait until the AI bubble bursts, those left in the game taking over the positions will probably be the ones ultimately footing the bill for this round of geopolitical conflict and asset bubble resonance.

Trump's typical problem is: he hopes allies continue to depend on the security system the US provides, yet is unwilling to continue bearing the costs corresponding to traditional hegemony. Simultaneously, he demands allies show absolute obedience and actual investment at critical moments. Simply put, it's wanting this, wanting that, and wanting everything.

As for market level, increasingly more people no longer view Trump as a stable policymaker, but rather as a political variable capable of repeatedly creating volatility and repeatedly "drawing lines" for the market. In a sense, he himself has become part of the trading logic.

International relations sometimes resemble how people interact. Whether friendships last depends not on one-sided extraction, but on basic mutual understanding and reciprocation. The same applies between nations. You treat me well, I treat you well—this kind of relationship has sustainability. If one side always feels it's weak, that it's right, wanting only continuous advantage in aid and support while maintaining silence at critical moments, then this relationship is destined to be unstable.

Helping is fine, but help needs to consider the recipient. Those truly worth helping are countries that know gratitude, understand reciprocation, and can stand up to express their stance at critical moments—even if it's just taking a position in voting. If a country treats your support as taken for granted normally, yet chooses to play dumb on international issues, or even wavers on key interests, then what it wants isn't cooperation, but only one-sided extraction.

Trump's campaign core has always been "America First." On one hand, he imposes tariffs on allies, indirectly collecting protection fees. On the other hand, at critical moments he reallocates air defense systems, prioritizing strategic resources toward the Middle East. Meanwhile, he demands protected countries immediately deploy troops, provide funds, and take positions when needed. This logic itself carries strong contradictions and is destined to continually deplete the trust in the alliance system.

Therefore, how the Strait of Hormuz ultimately concludes is truly worth watching. It relates not only to whether Middle East situations will further spiral out of control, but also to global oil prices, inflation expectations, capital markets, and ultimately how this round of AI narrative will be repriced by reality.

Foreseeable is that once trapped in prolonged warfare, global asset volatility will increase dramatically in the future—one misstep means returning to poverty.

In trading: respond only with rationality. Those who survive on logic, insight, and patience live to be kings at the end.