The conflict between the United States, Israel, and Iran has entered its 18th day. News broke this morning that Ali Larijani, a senior Iranian official, and his son were killed in an attack. At least from this round of conflict, Israel's style in precision strikes is indeed somewhat "ruthless and taciturn" – once it publicly claims to have taken out someone, it usually actually does. In contrast, Iran's top leadership typically first denies such reports, then gradually confirms them, which also reflects the gap between the two sides in information warfare, intelligence capabilities, and organizational efficiency.

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

The truly credible 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 also sending signals: as long as its civilian and oil facilities continue to be targeted, it won't rule out escalating the conflict to energy facilities in neighboring Gulf countries. Its essence is not about matching absolute military power with the US and Israel, but rather raising the cost of war as much as possible and transmitting regional risks to the global energy market.

For crude oil-producing countries like the United States and Russia, rising oil prices are not entirely bad in some respects. However, from a macroeconomic perspective, rising crude oil equally pushes up inflation, ultimately directly reflecting on public opinion and votes. Crude oil is a special asset: it can drain liquidity from assets like gold and silver on the market, while also carrying strong "self-destructive" characteristics. The higher the price, the more suppressive it becomes for the global economy. Once consumption cools and the economy weakens, oil prices fall again due to declining demand.

Trump clearly sees this point, which is why he's trying to pull allies together for Hormuz escort missions, and may even be trying to use this opportunity to strengthen control over this maritime chokepoint. However, the problem is that allies like Japan, South Korea, and NATO countries are unwilling to easily get involved. These allies hope to enjoy the security protection the US provides in peacetime, but when high-risk situations arise, they refuse to bear corresponding costs – naturally this infuriates Trump.

NATO's core is ultimately the United States. In other words, the US is almost the pivot on which NATO operates. After the Cold War ended, the international landscape was long characterized as "one superpower and multiple great powers," with that "superpower" being the United States. The two most important pillars maintaining US hegemony are: first, the dollar system, and second, military alliances and overseas base networks. The former allows it to influence the globe economically, while the latter enables it to project military power globally.

Therefore, crude oil futures prices may not fully reflect actual spot prices and future situations. War may end quickly or evolve into a prolonged war of attrition. However, one point is relatively clear: as long as oil prices continue surging and move toward extremes, the global economy will likely not look great. By the time the AI bubble bursts, those left in the market to take over positions will probably be the ones ultimately paying for this round of geopolitical conflict and asset bubble resonance.

Trump's typical problem is: he wants allies to remain dependent on the security system the US provides, yet is unwilling to continue bearing the costs corresponding to traditional hegemony, while simultaneously demanding allies demonstrate absolute obedience and actual commitment at critical times. Simply put, he wants everything.

As for the 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 has become part of the trading logic itself.

International relations sometimes resemble interpersonal relationships. 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 relationship has continuity. If one side always feels it's weak and justified, only wanting to take advantage in aid and support while remaining silent at critical moments, such relationships are destined to be unstable.

Helping is fine, but help should depend on the recipient. Those truly worth helping are countries that know gratitude, understand reciprocation, and can stand up to express their position at critical moments – even if just taking a stance in voting. If a country treats your support as a given in peacetime, plays dumb on international issues, or wavers on matters of key interest, then what it wants is not cooperation, but merely one-sided extraction.

The core of Trump's campaign has always been "America First." On one hand, he imposes tariffs on allies, effectively collecting protection fees. On the other hand, he prioritizes deploying air defense systems and directing strategic resources to the Middle East when needed. Yet he simultaneously demands that protected countries immediately deploy troops, money, and attitude when required. This logic itself carries strong contradictions and is destined to continuously undermine the trust of the alliance system.

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

It's foreseeable that once trapped in a prolonged war, global asset volatility will surge dramatically, and careless mistakes will lead to poverty.

In trading: only rational responses, relying on logic, insight, and patience can survive. The survivors become kings.