It's 1:38 PM in New York, American markets still have two and a half hours of trading left, and meanwhile, a Republican senator from North Carolina just confirmed what many suspected: Washington is actively planning a war against Iran. Read more: markets peace trump Ted Budd, with the detachment of a man discussing the weather, explains that the president "must have flexibility and options to try to 'neutralize' the Tehran regime."
War as a Financial Product
According to Bloomberg, Budd claims the administration has already outlined to lawmakers "the broad strokes of its objectives for the Iran war." Not "in case of war" — FOR THE war. The grammatical nuance speaks volumes about the mindset in Washington. We're no longer in deterrence or coercive diplomacy territory. We're in operational planning.
Read more: breaking analysis metaWhile this information circulates, the Dow Jones and NASDAQ continue their session as if nothing happened. European markets closed an hour ago — Paris at 5:30 PM, London at 4:30 PM, Frankfurt at 5:30 PM — without notable reaction. Tomorrow morning, when Tokyo opens at 9:00 AM local time (in 17 hours), then Shanghai at 9:30 AM, will we finally see awareness dawn? I doubt it.
The War Economy, That Old Acquaintance
Here's the paradox: a war against Iran would be a global economic disaster, but a jackpot for certain sectors. Oil prices would skyrocket — Iran controls the Strait of Hormuz through which 20% of global oil transits. Global supply chains, already fragile since 2020, would explode. Inflation would surge again across all developed economies.
But arms manufacturers would be rubbing their hands together. Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, General Dynamics — their order books would fill for decades. The investment banks financing these contracts too. Not to mention the reconstruction companies that would intervene afterward, as happened in Iraq.
The Real Cost of Military Adventure
The numbers speak for themselves. The Iraq war cost over $2 trillion to the United States according to the most conservative estimates. Iran has four times Iraq's population, territory three times larger, and above all, a regime that has had 45 years to prepare for this scenario. The budgetary cost would be astronomical.
But who will pay? Not Raytheon shareholders, that's certain. It will be American taxpayers, through public debt that will explode even further. It will be global consumers, through energy inflation. It will be emerging countries, through capital flight toward American "safe haven" assets.
Normalizing the Unthinkable
What strikes me about Budd's statements is their banality. He talks about "neutralizing" a regime like discussing a plumbing problem. This desensitization to war's human and economic cost is the real danger.
Because while Washington plans, markets act as if this war won't happen. Institutional investors, the same ones who claim to integrate "geopolitical risks" into their models, seem incapable of pricing the risk of a conflict that would close the Strait of Hormuz.
The Real Winners Are Already Known
Let's look at who's already profiting from this escalation. Oil prices have gained 15% since the beginning of the year, driven by geopolitical tensions. Defense stocks are outperforming the S&P 500 index. U.S. Treasury bonds are attracting capital seeking safety.
The American military-industrial complex doesn't even need the war to happen to profit from it. The mere threat suffices to justify ever-larger defense budgets. The Pentagon is requesting $842 billion for 2025 — a 4.1% increase from 2024.
Europe, Paying Spectator
Meanwhile, European markets, closed for an hour now, haven't integrated this information. Tomorrow morning, at the opening of Paris, London, and Frankfurt, investors may discover that their energy supply depends on Washington's geopolitical calculations.
Because Europe will pay dearly for an American war against Iran. Already dependent on energy imports, it would see its costs explode. Its companies, already penalized by energy costs higher than their American and Chinese competitors, would lose even more competitiveness.
The Final Bill
When Budd talks about giving the president "flexibility and options," he's actually talking about giving the American executive the power to trigger a global economic crisis. Without real democratic debate, without serious cost-benefit evaluation, without even an honest estimate of consequences.
Markets will close in two hours in New York. Tomorrow, they'll reopen as if nothing happened. But somewhere in Pentagon and CIA offices, men in suits are planning a war whose price we'll all pay. And Wall Street pretends not to see.
This is modern political economy: privatize war's profits, socialize its costs. Budd said it without meaning to — we're already at war. We just don't know it yet.
Frequently Asked Questions
Q: Is the U.S. planning a war against Iran?
Yes, a Republican senator from North Carolina has confirmed that Washington is actively planning a war against Iran, indicating that the administration has outlined its objectives for the conflict.
Q: How would a war with Iran affect the global economy?
A war against Iran would likely lead to a global economic disaster, with skyrocketing oil prices and disrupted supply chains. Inflation would surge across developed economies, while certain sectors, like arms manufacturing, could see significant financial gains.
Q: What impact would a conflict with Iran have on U.S. markets?
Despite the looming threat of war, U.S. markets like the Dow Jones and NASDAQ have shown little reaction, continuing their trading sessions as if nothing is happening. This detachment raises questions about market awareness and potential future impacts once global markets react.