The world is entering a period of prolonged geopolitical instability in which war, economic pressure, political polarization, and institutional decline are beginning to reinforce one another.

Several regional conflicts are occurring at the same time, but the deeper problem is that the global system has become so interconnected that disruption in one region can now spread rapidly across energy markets, trade routes, food systems, political institutions, and social stability.

From the Middle East to Europe and from Latin America to the global maritime system, the coming years will place the existing international order under increasingly severe pressure.

1. Iran, Israel, the United States, and the Middle East War

The current apparent ceasefires and negotiations are temporary and largely theatrical.

The coming months are expected to involve:

• Periods of intense warfare.
• Temporary pauses or ceasefires.
• Renewed fighting.
• Continued negotiations on the political level while military preparations continue.

Division Inside Iran

Iran’s political and military leadership are increasingly divided.

• The political leadership wants a permanent ceasefire and economic stability.
• The IRGC and military leadership believe the United States and Israel will eventually attack or invade regardless of any agreement.
• Therefore, the military side sees little value in permanent agreements and is preparing for future war.

China, India, the GCC, and Pressure on Iran

Countries such as China, India, Pakistan, and the GCC want the conflict stopped because a wider Middle East war would severely damage the global economy.

• These countries have much more ability to pressure Iran than to pressure the United States or Israel.
• China has especially strong leverage because of its importance as a buyer of Iranian oil.
• Iran therefore has to publicly continue pursuing negotiations even while preparing militarily for another phase of war.

Prediction of a US Ground Invasion

The United States has already decided on a ground invasion of Iran.

The main obstacles are:

• Extreme summer heat.
• The need to prepare logistics.
• The need to assemble forces and battlefield plans.
• The desire to have other forces, particularly Kurdish forces or regional groups, fight at the front while the United States provides air power and support.

An invasion could begin as early as October or possibly after the US midterm elections.

Current negotiations are an attempt to delay an eventual larger war.

2. Oil, the Strait of Hormuz, and the Global Economy

The world remains structurally dependent on cheap Middle Eastern oil.

Trump is trying to prevent an immediate oil-price shock by making short-term arrangements involving:

• Iran.
• China.
• Russia.
• Other oil suppliers and consumers.

Trump is attempting to manage supply and demand temporarily so that oil prices do not immediately explode.

However, this is only postponing the problem.

Disruption to Middle Eastern energy supplies could eventually cause:

• A major global emergency.
• Higher oil prices.
• Inflation.
• Food shortages.
• Economic problems in East Asia.
• Severe food-security problems in the Global South.
• Wider instability throughout the global economy.

Political leaders are focused on short-term deals rather than long-term systemic consequences.

3. Iran’s Regional Allies and Proxies

Hezbollah, Iraqi Shia militias, and the Houthis are major strategic obstacles to a US-led war against Iran.

Before a major invasion of Iran, the United States and its allies would want these groups isolated or neutralized.

Hezbollah and Lebanon

Hezbollah is the most important pressure point.

• A peace arrangement may be designed to create tension between Iran’s political leadership and Hezbollah.
• Some Iranians may increasingly question why Iran should continue sacrificing for Hezbollah.
• The Lebanese government could eventually turn against Hezbollah.
• Syria could attack or pressure Hezbollah from the north.
• Israel could attack from the south.
• Iran could gradually become less willing or able to support Hezbollah.

Syria is especially important to watch.

Iraq

Political developments and anti-corruption actions in Iraq may be connected to an effort to weaken Shia militias and make Iraq more useful as a platform for pressure against Iran.

Kurdish forces could eventually be used against northwestern Iran.

Yemen and the Houthis

Saudi Arabia may support local Yemeni tribal groups against the Houthis in order to reignite or intensify internal conflict.

These separate moves would isolate Iran’s regional allies from one another before a larger attack on Iran.

4. America’s Broader Geopolitical Strategy

America’s broader geopolitical strategy has three pillars.

Pillar 1: Control of the Western Hemisphere

This represents a form of a new Monroe Doctrine or “Donroe Doctrine.”

The United States wants to:

• Maintain dominance over the Western Hemisphere.
• Push Russian and Chinese influence out.
• Make Chinese access to Latin American resources more expensive.
• Control important resources, food, and energy in the Americas.

Pillar 2: Control of Global Maritime Choke Points

The United States intends to use naval and air superiority to control major trade routes and choke points, including:

• The Strait of Hormuz.
• The Strait of Malacca.
• Gibraltar.
• The Panama Canal.
• Arctic routes.
• The Cape of Good Hope.

Controlling these routes allows the United States to influence or control global trade.

Pillar 3: Maintain Major Regional Conflicts

The United States benefits from continuing conflict in three major theaters:

• NATO and Russia through Ukraine.
• China and Japan/the West around Taiwan.
• Iran and Israel in the Middle East.

The United States does not necessarily need a decisive victory.

Prolonged conflicts allow America to supply:

• Weapons.
• Energy.
• Food.
• Financing.

This could strengthen American leverage over allies and help shift the economic burden of US debt onto the rest of the world.

5. Ukraine, NATO, Europe, and Russia

The Ukraine war is becoming a much larger, long-term confrontation between Europe/NATO and Russia.

Patriot Missile Production

Discussion of Ukraine manufacturing Patriot systems is part of a wider effort to arm Europe for a long confrontation with Russia.

The distinction is:

• Factories inside Ukraine can be attacked by Russia relatively easily.
• Production facilities inside NATO territory are much harder for Russia to attack because an attack could trigger a NATO response.

European weapons production therefore represents a major escalation.

Russia Moving Toward “Total War”

Russian officials are increasingly describing the conflict not simply as a special military operation but as a war against NATO.

Russia may increasingly reorganize itself around a long-term war footing.

6. Europe and the Sunk-Cost Trap

The outlook for Europe is highly pessimistic.

The Brussels bureaucracy exists in its own ideological and political bubble.

European leaders sincerely believe:

• Russia can be defeated.
• Ukraine can win.
• Putin may fall.
• The Russian economy may collapse.
• A defeated Russia could eventually provide resources or reparations that help solve Europe’s economic problems.

This belief is delusional, but European leaders nevertheless act on it sincerely.

Expected Escalation Path

The escalation is expected to occur gradually:

1. Money and weapons.
2. Special forces.
3. Mercenaries.
4. Volunteers.
5. Direct troop deployment.
6. Conscription.

This process resembles a sunk-cost fallacy.

Once Europe has invested heavily in the war, European governments may find it politically difficult to stop.

Domestic Consequences

The consequences could include:

• Declining living standards.
• More social unrest.
• Conscription.
• Native European populations being mobilized for war.
• Political radicalization.
• Mutinies.
• Eventually political revolution or civil conflict in parts of Europe.

The war may ultimately end only when societies are exhausted.

Right-wing or anti-establishment parties are expected to become stronger, but existing institutions may resist them until a larger political crisis occurs.

7. Immigration, Conscription, and Social Tension

European elites do not necessarily have a highly sophisticated long-term plan for population replacement.

Political elites generally choose the path of least resistance and make short-term decisions.

In a major war:

• Native populations may be easier for governments to conscript.
• Immigrant populations may be less willing to fight for European states.
• Governments may therefore send more native young men to war.

This could unintentionally accelerate demographic and social change, even without a centrally designed plan.

8. The Bronze Age Collapse and Modern Globalization

The current world can be compared with the collapse of the Bronze Age.

Both systems represent periods of extremely high interconnectedness.

• During World War II, some parts of the world collapsed while North America remained strong enough to rebuild the system.
• Today, the American-led global system reaches almost everywhere.
• Therefore, if the current system breaks, no unaffected external power may exist to rebuild it easily.

The Strait of Hormuz is an example of systemic interdependence.

A disruption in one geographic location could produce consequences in:

• Africa.
• East Asia.
• North America.
• The Global South.
• Global food markets.
• Energy markets.

Extreme globalization creates extreme systemic vulnerability.

9. Latin America and the Western Hemisphere

The United States will become more aggressive throughout the Western Hemisphere.

The areas discussed include:

• Venezuela.
• Cuba.
• Mexico.
• Colombia.
• Greenland.
• Alberta.
• Argentina.

The United States will increasingly seek direct or indirect control over resources and governments in the Americas because of economic pressure and geopolitical competition.

Mexico and Colombia

The United States could use:

• Drug cartels.
• Fentanyl.
• Security concerns.
• Anti-narcotics operations.

as justifications for greater intervention.

Predicted Reaction

The reaction could include increasing:

• Latin American nationalism.
• Anti-American sentiment.
• Indigenous resistance.
• Guerrilla warfare.

Direct imperial control eventually produces local resistance, which is one reason previous American governments often avoided outright territorial conquest.

10. How to Read the Signals and Test the Predictions

The focus is on:

• Anomalies.
• Cognitive dissonance.
• Events that do not fit the conventional explanation.
• Situations where, based on the existing model, “this should not be happening.”

Two examples illustrate this approach.

The Mar-a-Lago Raid

The FBI raid led to the conclusion that Trump would return to the presidency because:

• Trump would have a strong personal incentive to regain political power.
• The raid transformed Trump into an underdog or folk hero for many voters.

The Killing of Qasem Soleimani

Soleimani’s killing led to the conclusion that the United States was moving toward eventual war with Iran.

The method is therefore to pay special attention to events that appear inconsistent with the existing relationship between major actors.

One way to test the broader framework is through predictions.

Three predictions are cited as having been correct:

• Trump would win.
• Trump would start a war with Iran.
• Trump would lose that war.

Several correct predictions can still be dismissed as luck.

Therefore, predictions should continue to be made so that the broader framework can be judged over time.

Further predictions include:

• Trump will obtain a third term.
• The United States will institute a national draft.
• Europe will go to war more directly with Russia.

If these predictions repeatedly fail, the framework should lose credibility. If they succeed, that would strengthen the framework.

Conclusion