Fears of a US-Iran conflict disrupting oil flows are overstated. Any potential US military action would likely be designed to be 'surgical' to specifically avoid Iran's oil infrastructure, as the administration's priority is preventing economic shocks and energy price hikes ahead of elections.

The recent conflicts in Iran and Venezuela can be framed as a covert economic war against China. Since China buys 90% of Iran's oil and relies on Venezuela's supply, US actions disrupting these nations directly target China's energy security and serve as a tool of economic containment.

PGIM's Daleep Singh argues that the risk of mutually assured destruction prevents direct military conflict between nuclear powers. This channels confrontation into the economic sphere, using tools like sanctions and trade policy as primary weapons of statecraft.

While currently aligned, the long-term interests of Israel and the US in a war with Iran could split. Israel seeks total elimination of Iran's missile threat, implying a prolonged conflict. The US, however, may have less tolerance for a drawn-out war due to concerns about its impact on global energy prices and the economy.

The US military buildup against Iran is interpreted not as an inevitable prelude to war, but as a high-stakes 'game of chicken.' The primary goal for President Trump is likely to exert maximum pressure to force Iran into a diplomatic deal with major concessions, making war a secondary, less preferable option.

Iran is caught in a strategic dilemma: claiming to be close to a nuclear weapon invites a preemptive US strike, while admitting weakness could embolden internal protest movements. This precarious balance makes their public statements highly volatile and reveals a fundamental vulnerability.

The public threats of a military strike against Iran may be a high-stakes negotiating tactic, consistent with Trump's style of creating chaos before seeking a deal. The goal is likely not war, which would be politically damaging, but to force Iran into economic concessions or a new agreement on US terms.

U.S. foreign policy actions against Venezuela and Iran are not primarily about democracy but are strategic moves to disrupt the flow of cheap, sanctioned oil to China. By controlling these sources, the U.S. can directly attack a key adversary's economic and military engine.

A cynical but plausible US strategy is to provoke conflicts, like with Iran, and then withdraw. This forces regional allies such as Saudi Arabia and the UAE to manage the fallout by purchasing billions in American weaponry, creating a forced market for the defense industry.