The Architecture of Fear: How Insecurity Shapes Everything
From Tehran Strikes to Berlin Boardrooms
Grüezi!
Israel’s dawn strikes on Iran expose the Fordow Paradox: They can kill nuclear scientists in their beds but can’t reach the underground facilities that matter – only American B-2 bombers could do that job, and Washington?
The economic war machine America built to crush Iran has eaten its own foreign policy: Congress voted 100-0 to sacrifice every other relationship for maximum pressure, and now one-third of all nations face US sanctions
German boardrooms prove meritocracy is capitalism’s canniest joke: After 150 years through Empire, Nazism, Communism and democracy, working-class access to elite positions improved by exactly 5%
1️⃣ The Fordow Paradox
Israel Can Degrade But Not Destroy Iran’s Nuclear Programme
TL;DR
Israel’s strikes killed nuclear scientists but can’t reach Fordow nuclear facility 80-90m underground
Only US B-2 bombers with GBU-57 bunker busters could potentially destroy Iran’s critical infrastructure
Regional powers now eye independent nuclear capabilities as US security guarantees collapse
The pre-dawn explosions over Tehran on 13 June 2025 marked more than another escalation in the Israeli-Iranian conflict. Israel’s strikes – targeting nuclear infrastructure and assassinating key regime figures including nuclear negotiators – shattered decades of managed hostility. They also mark something more consequential: how American withdrawal encourages military adventurism whilst accelerating nuclear proliferation.
The transformation is clearest in Israeli behaviour. Netanyahu, historically cautious despite his hawkish rhetoric, has abandoned restraint entirely. Before October 2023, multiple deterrents constrained Israeli action: Hezbollah’s rocket arsenal, Iran’s retaliatory capabilities, and American pressure for strategic patience. Today, Hezbollah lies devastated, Iran struggles to defend itself, and American restraining influence has evaporated.
“Multiple impacts at the same aiming point would be required”
Israel’s strategic dilemma centres on Fordow, the underground enrichment facility 80-90 metres underground near Qom. Beyond the reach of Israeli bombs, Fordow represents both the ultimate target and the limits of Israeli power.
It houses Iran’s most advanced centrifuges and, according to last month’s IAEA reports, contains 408.6kg of 60% enriched uranium – enough for 10 weapons after minimal processing.
Israel can degrade Iran’s programme sufficiently to accelerate weaponisation decisions but cannot eliminate it. Only the GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator, weighing 13,600kg and capable of penetrating 60 metres underground, has potential to damage the facility. Even then, military analysts suggest multiple strikes would be required. Only American B-2 stealth bombers can deliver it.
China’s role as purchaser of 90% of Iran’s oil exports shapes outcomes. Through sanctions-evasion networks, Beijing maintains Iranian oil flows worth $60-72bn annually.
Independent “teapot” refineries in Shandong absorb Iranian crude at steep discounts, operating beyond Western financial systems. Should Iran close Hormuz or threaten Chinese interests, Beijing’s support would vanish.
The gravest impact lies in regional nuclear proliferation acceleration. Erdoğan’s September statement that Turkey deserves nuclear weapons reflected growing frustration with existing security arrangements.
Even Egypt, long committed to a weapons-free Middle East, is reconsidering as neighbours pursue threshold capabilities. Washington’s word, once sufficient to discourage independent nuclear programmes, no longer reassures.
Consequences
Iran’s nuclear programme will reconstitute with greater urgency and less transparency
Turkey’s Russian reactors plus deteriorating NATO relations create proliferation risks
State collapse scenarios multiply dangers of nuclear materials in contested territories
2️⃣ The Pots and Pans Theory of Oil Prices
Why You Should Bet Against Sustained Spikes
TL;DR
Israel damaged Iran’s processing facilities, not oil wells – infrastructure repairable in months
Saudi spare capacity claims suspect: history shows sustainable production nearer 9-10m bpd
Non-OPEC production growth plus weak demand point to $65-70 oil within 3-6 months
When Israel struck Iranian energy facilities last Friday, oil prices jumped 7% - their biggest single-day surge in years.
Many worried this could signal sustained price surges. But here’s why we’re likely heading for lower prices ahead.
The strikes triggered significant damage at the Phase 14 natural gas processing facility and halted an offshore production platform generating 12 million cubic metres per day. They also hit refineries and storage depots near Tehran.
But Israel avoided striking Iran’s most important oil infrastructure. They didn’t touch Kharg Island, which handles 90% of Iran’s oil exports. They didn’t hit the actual oil wells.
“The kingdom already holds some 3 Mb/d of spare production capacity”
Think of it like this: if oil production were a kitchen, Israel took out some pots and pans, not the larder.
The International Energy Agency estimates OPEC’s total spare capacity at 5.3 million bpd, of which 3.1 million bpd is held by Saudi Arabia. That sounds reassuring – until you dig deeper.
Saudi Arabia claims it can produce 12 million barrels per day. But history tells a different story. The kingdom has only managed that level for brief periods, like during price wars. Their sustainable production capacity appears closer to 9-10 million barrels per day. When they pump more, they’re essentially draining storage tanks – a trick that only works temporarily.
When similar events have happened – from the 1990 Gulf War to the 2019 attacks on Saudi facilities – the pattern is consistent: prices spike, then fall back within weeks or months once traders realise actual supply wasn’t severely disrupted.
The 2019 attack on Saudi Arabia’s Abqaiq facility sparked initial panic, yet the Kingdom used stored oil to maintain exports while repairing damage. Oil prices returned to pre-attack levels within two weeks.
The world is actually adding oil production capacity, not losing it. Total petroleum supply increased by 0.6 million b/d in 2024 and will increase by 1.9 million b/d in 2025.
US shale producers can now respond to higher prices in just 3-4 months, compared to 12-18 months before 2017. Meanwhile, China shows demand weakness, and every $10 increase typically reduces global demand by 500,000 barrels per day.
Consequences
Strategic petroleum reserves can release 4 million barrels daily for 90 days
OPEC+’s share of global production will decrease to 46% by 2026, from 53% in 2016
Without permanent destruction of production capacity, geopolitical price surges typically reverse
3️⃣ The Dollar Bomb
How Bureaucrats and Lobbyists Made Iran America’s Only Foreign Policy
TL;DR
US Treasury weaponised dollar dominance, forcing global banks to choose between dollars and Tehran
Congressional pressure made Iran sanctions override relationships with India, China, even Europe
America now sanctions one-third of all nations, undermining the dollar system it sought to protect
Two decades ago, America discovered it could wage war through banks rather than bombs. Today, that discovery has transformed US foreign policy into an economic warfare machine – one that shapes every international crisis through the distorting lens of financial punishment.
The architect was Stuart Levey, the first undersecretary for terrorism and financial intelligence at the US Treasury. When President George W. Bush lamented in 2004 that America had “sanctioned itself out of influence with Iran,” Levey proved otherwise.
His innovation? Weaponising America’s central position in global finance to force banks and entire nations to choose – dollars or Iran. An economic banker buster, capable of devastating economies without firing a shot.
“If you see a stampede, jump out in front and call it a parade”
The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) drove this revolution through Congress. Through what Edward Fishman’s “Chokepoints” documents as ‘briefing after briefing on Iran policy with AIPAC, think tanks, and Israeli officials,’ Congress became convinced that crushing Iran’s economy should override all other foreign policy goals. Their success was extraordinary: in July 2013, the House voted 400-20 for enhanced sanctions.
This congressional pressure created a dynamic where America’s Iran obsession trumped everything else. When Treasury officials warned that sanctioning Iran’s central bank could push oil above $200 per barrel and trigger an American recession, Senator Bob Menendez dismissed concerns. The Senate passed his amendment 100-0. The administration adopted what one official called the ‘stampede’ approach – transforming congressional demands into executive policy to maintain the illusion of control.
The diplomatic costs were staggering. The State Department’s energy envoy travelled personally to India to threaten individual refinery executives unless they cut Iranian oil by 20 per cent. Then-Secretary of State Clinton acknowledged the pressure backfired, yet Washington pressed on. Even China felt obliged to play along – after months of demands, Beijing cleverly pointed US diplomats to existing data showing imports had already fallen.
By 2022, the United States imposed three times more sanctions than any other country, targeting one-third of all nations.
Stuart Levey’s career? After government, he became HSBC’s chief counsel. When Secretary of State John Kerry’s made efforts to encourage banks to re-engage with Iran, he penned a WSJ op-ed to publicly reject the idea. Perhaps there was a little ideology beneath the innovation.
Consequences
Sanctions architects won promotions and private sector riches, creating perverse incentives
Countries began hedging against American coercion, undermining dollar dominance
Iran obsession blinded strategic thinking – by 2022, America applied Iran playbook to Russia
4️⃣ The Lillehammer Doctrine
When in Doubt, Kill
TL;DR
1973 killing of an innocent Moroccan waiter established an assassination precedent
Targets expanded from militants to scientists to neighbours – guilt by proximity
AI-controlled weapons and mass-detonation devices mark an evolution to autonomous killing
In the pre-dawn darkness of 5 September 1972, eight Palestinian militants scaled a fence at the Munich Olympics. Hours later, 11 Israeli athletes lay dead.
Israel’s response to the murders transformed international state violence. A secret committee chaired by Golda Meir authorised the assassination of everyone involved. Operation ‘Wrath of God’ began as righteous vengeance – no one would ever dare inflict violence on Israelis again. Instead, it ended up normalising state murder.
On 21 July 1973, Israeli agents shot Ahmed Bouchikhi 13 times as he walked home from the cinema accompanied by his pregnant wife. He was a Moroccan waiter mistaken for a terrorist operations chief.
The Mossad agents knew something was wrong – Bouchikhi didn’t match their photographs. Headquarters overruled them. Their logic: if he wasn’t a big terrorist, he was probably a small one.
“He was killed in a Norwegian town that hadn’t had a murder in 36 years”
This turned out not to be an aberration but an emerging doctrine. When in doubt, kill. In a Norwegian town without a murder for 36 years, Israel lowered the bar on state-sponsored assassination on foreign soil.
The disaster of Lillehammer resulted in a halt to the killings. But that turned out to be a pause, and not an end, but a beginning. After a few years, targets expanded. Bystanders were a price that could be paid.
By 2010, Israel had moved from hunting triggermen and bag carriers to scientists engaged in nuclear work.
In 2012 Mostafa Ahmadi Roshan was driving to work when motorcycle assassins attached a magnetic bomb to his car. His driver also died. He was a chemical engineer running a .
By November 2020, when Iran’s chief nuclear scientist Mohsen Fakhrizadeh died, Israel had perfected its art. A robotic machine gun, controlled by AI from thousands of kilometres away, eliminated any requirement for human presence at his killing.
Last September’s exploding pagers in Lebanon showed the next evolution. Thousands of devices detonated simultaneously – not much discrimination, anyone holding one became a casualty. Friday’s Iran operation represents another marker: scientists, their families, friends, nieghbours permanently archived. Guilty not by association but proximity.
From pistols to AI weapons to mass-detonation devices: each advance makes killing easier, more distant, less human. When algorithms select targets and machines execute, militaries can choose to just let them get on with it.
This year, the US announced thousands of autonomous weapons systems.
Consequences
Israel’s post-Munich cycle now encompasses the globe – four state-sponsored assassination attempts on American soil this year
New standard revealed: up to 100 civilian deaths acceptable to eliminate one commander
Every practitioner invites retaliation – normalising murder abroad makes nobody safe at home
5️⃣ Trade Wars Begin in the Mind
Why Both America and China Act from Fear, Not Strength
TL;DR
Countries start conflicts when they fear losing trade access, not when they’re economically dominant
China’s military intrusions doubled; America imposed sweeping embargoes – both claim defence
Neither China nor America can credibly promise future restraint, creating inevitable conflict
Dale Copeland’s book “A World Safe for Commerce” offers a provocative explanation for why China and America have fallen out so dramatically.
Countries don’t start conflicts because they’re strong – they start them because they’re afraid – scared of losing access to trade and markets. This theory illuminates not just China’s belligerence, but America’s too: both powers are lashing out from insecurity, not strength.
The evidence is striking on both sides. China’s military aircraft intrusions have doubled year-on-year. America has imposed sweeping technology embargoes on Chinese companies. China threatens neighbours who engage with Taipei. America builds military alliances explicitly aimed at “containing” China. Each move looks aggressive to the other, both claim to be acting defensively.
“Better fight now, they calculated, than slowly suffocate later”
Copeland studied 60 international crises over two centuries and discovered something striking: trade prevents wars when countries believe commerce will continue, but actually causes wars when they fear it will end.
Think of it like a marriage – couples rarely divorce when they’re planning their future together, but watch out when both partners start hiding assets and consulting lawyers.
This pattern has played out before. In 1914, Germany was deeply integrated into the world economy. British and German businesses were thoroughly intertwined. Yet Germany started a war that ended up destroying those ties.
Why? Because German leaders believed their rivals were slowly strangling their economy and would eventually cut them off completely. Better fight now, they calculated, than slowly suffocate later.
Today’s parallel is unmistakable. When America restricts semiconductor exports or talks about “decoupling”, Chinese leaders hear echoes of past embargoes. When China builds military bases or subsidises industries to dominate global markets, American leaders see their own economic future threatened. Each side’s “defensive” moves terrify the other.
This creates what academics call a “commitment problem.” China can’t credibly promise to behave responsibly if it becomes dominant, so America is frightened of giving it that chance.
But America can’t credibly promise to keep markets open if China threatens its interests, so China fears gradual strangulation.
Neither side can trust the other’s promises about the future. And the rest of us are living with the results.
Consequences
Xi Jinping warns of coming “storms”; American leaders speak of “the decisive decade” – both reveal deep anxiety
South China Sea matters for its $3.4 trillion in annual shipping – vital for both nations’ trade
Managing this requires accepting both powers are driven by fear, not confidence
6️⃣ The Five Percent Century
Germany’s Boardrooms Prove Meritocracy Is a Myth
TL;DR
Social climbers’ access to top German positions increased just 5% since 1907
Corporate boards survived Empire, Weimar, Nazis, democracy with their elite demographics intact
Modern capitalism maintains belief in mobility while systematically entrenching privilege
Our faith in social mobility might be capitalism’s cruellest joke. German sociologist Michael Hartmann tracked 2,400 elite positions across 150 years. His results? German business dynasties have survived Empire, Weimar, the Third Reich, communism and federal democracy.
Through kaisers, führers, and federal chancellors, there’s one crushing verdict: the proportion of social climbers rising from working or middle classes to lead German boardrooms has increased by just five percentage points since 1907.
Despite 150 years of social progress, elite recruitment patterns remain frozen. Major political upheavals come and go but they barely touch corporate boardrooms. This economic resilience through wars and regime changes ensured “great stability and a consistently high degree of social exclusivity”.
The Nazis purged Jewish business leaders, yet overall elite structure barely budged. Two world wars decimated the population, yet boardroom demographics remained frozen.
“Social mobility across generations may be substantially overstated”
The most damning finding? Corporate boards proved uniquely resistant to political upheaval. While politics, judiciary, and administration showed a little democratisation, boardrooms remained aristocratic preserves. Limited liability corporations, trust structures, and holding companies aren’t just legal entities; they’re moats around modern feudalism.
Wealthy families adopt “bureaucratic practices” – meetings, presentations, document-signing – to preserve intergenerational wealth. The very tedium of corporate governance becomes a barrier to entry.
Even as Germany rebuilt from ashes, proclaimed a social market economy, integrated into Europe’s promise of opportunity – parenthood still beats performance.
Germany isn’t unique – it’s simply meticulously documented. Recent research confirms similar patterns globally, with American studies showing rich grandparents exponentially increase a grandchild’s chances of reaching the top 1%.
The genius of modern capitalism isn’t delivering mobility – it’s maintaining belief in mobility while systematically entrenching privilege.
Every generation produces just enough token success stories to sustain the fantasy. Meanwhile, change crawls forward imperceptibly. At Germany’s current rate, achieving genuine social mobility would take another millennium.
Consequences
The top 3-4% maintain their monopoly through legal structures, not merit
German workers genuinely believe in meritocracy even as data proves otherwise
Token exceptional individuals who break through sustain the mobility fantasy
7️⃣ Vive La France!
Some news about me.
TL;DR
Ma Marseillaise personnelle
Après un entretien avec un interviewer très sympathique à Grenoble, mon parcours de plusieurs années pour devenir citoyen français est maintenant entre les mains de la préfecture locale.
Souhaitez-moi « Bonne chance ! »
Conséquences
Je pourrais peut-être voter !
Thanks for reading!
Best
Adrian
