Iran to Trump: If you destroy us, you destroy yourself

In the American streaming series "Bosch," the main character, a police detective named Harry Bosch, kills two bad guys in a plane who are trying to kill him. He then goes to the cockpit holding a pistol taken from one of the dead men. The pilot looks at him and says, "You kill me, you kill yourself." Bosch says, "I'm a f--king cop, asshole." The plane lands safely and the pilot is taken into custody.

In this analogy, President Trump is Harry Bosch; the pilot is the Supreme Leader of Iran, Mojtaba Khamenei; and the plane is the world economy. Khamenei can crash the plane, that is, kill the world economy by destroying the oil and gas infrastructure throughout the Persian Gulf so that it would take years to rebuild. Khamenei could go even further and destroy desalination plants in the following countries with noted dependencies on such plants for drinking water: Saudi Arabia (70%), Oman (86%), United Arab Emirates (42%), and Kuwait (90%). Doing this would make these countries largely uninhabitable. It's important to recognize that the Iranian military has demonstrated that it can hit precisely what it wants to hit with missiles and drones and destroy it.

Sticking with the Bosch analogy, it's still possible for Trump to let the plane land and save the world economy from complete destruction. The difference is that the pilot—in this analogy, Iran in the person of its Supreme Leader—must be allowed to go free and live undisturbed. That is what Trump believes he cannot allow because it would be a humiliating loss.

Is the complacency in global financial markets warranted?

Shortly before the war with Iran began, I wrote that the seeming complacency among government officials and financial market participants was based on two assumptions which I argued were unlikely to turn out to be true: 1) President Donald Trump would make a last-minute deal with the Iranians and declare victory and 2) even if Trump didn't make such a deal, the Iranians would not do all the things which they threatened to do if attacked.

Here we are three weeks into the conflict between the United States and Israel and Iran. There was, of course, no last-minute deal and the Iranians have done exactly what they threatened to do. Here is what I reported before the war were Iran's threats:

Those threats include attacking U.S. bases in the region, attacking any country that assists the U.S. and Israeli war effort, attacking U.S. naval vessels, and, most important, closing the Strait of Hormuz through which passes 20 percent of the world's exported oil and liquefied natural gas.

Oil price manipulation, an unrecognized stratagem and an unhinged plan

Governments around the world are desperate to bring down oil prices in the wake of a cutoff of about one-fifth of the world's supply due to the Iran war. Here are some of the moves we've seen so far:

1. The International Energy Agency, a consortium of 32 countries which coordinate energy policy and emergency readiness, called an emergency meeting to discuss release of strategic petroleum reserves to ease prices. The countries agreed to a release of 400 million barrels from reserves held in underground caverns and above ground in storage tanks, the largest release ever of such reserves.
   
   With about 20 million barrels per day no longer available from Persian Gulf exports because of the Iranian closure of the Strait of Hormuz, the narrow passage from the gulf to the open sea, this release represent just 20 days of oil deliveries. But it is unlikely that the daily release of oil will be more than a fraction of the lost barrels given constraints on how fast the reserve can be accessed. So it's not surprising that oil prices actually went up after the announcement.


2. Of course, I would be remiss in not pointing out that Iran's closure of the Strait of Hormuz was the initial manipulation of the world oil price as it vowed to push oil prices to $200 per barrel.

Iran war: What we're in for and why logic is your friend

Two weeks ago I suggested that the complacency regarding war with Iran was misplaced and that that complacency was likely soon to be replaced by panic in the world's capitals and financial markets. The general belief was that President Donald Trump would relent, make a deal with Iran, and declare victory. Even if he didn't, the Iranian regime would be quickly overwhelmed by a combined American and Israeli attack and possibly be overthrown in a popular revolt or in the alternative, sue for peace within days.

Of course, neither of those things turned out to be the case. The complacency has now vanished. Leaders in at least some capitals are panicking though the financial markets continue to respond in a surprisingly muted way to the risks this war poses for the world economy.

Here is the most important thing readers should understand about this war: Iran defines winning the war very narrowly. Victory for the Iranian regime is that the regime survives. Israel and the United States define winning as the fall of the current regime leading either to a new friendly regime or a break-up of the country into various parts. And just last Friday President Trump added that the "unconditional surrender" surrender of Iran is the only acceptable outcome. Now consider the remarks of the Iranian foreign minister to NBC: "We are not asking for a cease-fire and we don't see any reason why we should negotiate with the U.S." He pointed out that the United States has used two previous negotiations as a deceptive cover for attacks. So, it looks like this conflict will be a fight to the finish.

Could AI lead to the destruction of civilization?

When it comes to the dangers of artificial intelligence (AI) and now artificial superintelligence (ASI) (sometimes called artificial general intelligence), I feel as if we've been transported onto the set of the 1983 film "WarGames."

In the film teenage hacker David Lightman stumbles onto the military's most sensitive war scenario planning computer while believing he has simply found a soon-to-be-released game called "Global Thermonuclear War" on the server of a computer game company.  Lightman activates the game which ultimately makes personnel at the North American Air Defense Command (NORAD) mistakenly believe that the Soviet Union is preparing for an attack. On big screens throughout the war room, Soviet movements and preparations become ever more threatening by the hour. As we are told later, the object of the game is to win and so the computer sets out to win a thermonuclear war.

When Lightman realizes what he's done, he seeks out the one person he believes can stop the madness. (I'm skipping a lot of steps here.) He catches up with the architect of that war planning computer system, Stephen Falken. Falken is living a solitary, anonymous existence (under a different name) in a home that Falken says is near a primary nuclear target. He explains to the young hacker: "A millisecond of brilliant light and we're vaporized. Much more fortunate than the millions who'll wander sightless through the smouldering aftermath. We'll be spared the horror of survival."

Wars and rumors of wars: Iran edition

Last September I produced a brief survey of major conflict across the globe in which I wrote the following about the conflict with Iran and Israel, one which is now referred to as the 12-Day War: "[T]here is every reason to believe that the conflict between Israel and Iran is not over and that the United States may be drawn in again."

It appears the next phase of this war is about to begin. In fact, by the time you read this, attacks may already have begun.

It puzzles me that the rest of the world has treated the run-up to this second phase of the war as a non-event. Although the vast build-up of U.S. military forces has been covered in the media, other stories concerning the U.S. Supreme Court overturning tariffs imposed by the Trump administration and the ongoing fallout from the Epstein files are covered with equal if not greater weight. The financial markets have been barely roiled except for a relatively small uptick in oil prices.

The chemical society and its discontents: Ozone layer edition

The history of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), their danger to the ozone layer, and the drive to replace them reminds me of an observation from former CBS news correspondent and commentator Eric Sevareid: "[T]he real cause of problems is solutions."

When chemists F. Sherwood Roland and Mario Molina asked where chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) go after leaking from refrigerators and air conditioners or being intentionally released from aerosol cans, they did not know that the answer would lead to the world-shaking discovery that these chemicals were threatening the Earth's ozone layer with destruction. Since this layer protects the Earth's surface from most of the Sun's ultraviolet radiation—radiation that would threaten all life if unchecked—the countries of the world agreed to phase out the use of these chemicals in what is known as the Montreal Protocol.

Substitute propellants for aerosol cans—mostly what is called liquid petroleum gas—represent an explosion hazard, but no longer threaten the ozone layer. But the first substitute for refrigerators and air conditioners, hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), still had some potential to damage to ozone layer. So, now those are being phased out and being replaced by hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) "which contain no chlorine, and therefore pose no risk to the ozone layer."

Taking a break - no post this week

Your humble author has been so overwhelmed with work that he has been unable to find time to write a post this week. He promises to return next week Sunday, February 15.

Taking a break - no post this week

I am taking a break this week and plan to post again on Sunday, February 8.

World oil and natural gas consumption vs discoveries: Diverging trends mean trouble

Herbert Stein was an American economist who served in both the Nixon and Ford administrations. He is probably most famous for formulating Stein's Law, namely, "If something cannot go on forever, it will stop." This is, of course, an obvious statement. But I think it cannot be stated too often in a global society that believes in infinite economic growth.

I propose to take a subset of that growth to demonstrate Stein's point. The subset is world oil and natural gas consumption versus discoveries. It turns out that Rystad Energy, a major consulting firm at the heart of the global oil and gas industry, has taken note of the fact that "just 25–30% of the oil consumed each year is currently being offset by new discoveries."

In a separate piece on both oil and natural gas, the advisory firm notes: