EvanWritesOnX

Geopolitics & Private Sector Analysis

[Evan @EvanWritesOnX]

Iran didn’t win.

A faction of Iran won. The other faction ended their reign along with the 4 decades of sanctions.

The cost of lifting those sanctions was for Iran to concede and downgrade on its hegemon-like power projection over the region.

Everyone said Mojtaba is more extreme.

I said he’s just an asset manager dressed up as a Shia cleric.

I said this on the day he was chosen after the death of his father;

that he will manage the IRGC base while coordinating with the pragmatist faction to reinstate a new Iran.

Khameini himself wanted this.

That was the entire end goal. A new Iran established by Iran themselves.

And this new Iran will now concede control over the region.

It will concede on its autonomy.

It will concede on its military prowess.

No one agrees with this because as always they fall for the narrative that’s being fed to them.

By Iran.

Look past the narrative, and you would understand that this is not winning.

This is Iran paying a heavy price to buy a seat at the table.

A table where global trade, economic integration and co-ownership of foreign direct investments happen.

A table that’s led by the GCC and TPS.

[Evan @EvanWritesOnX]

I cannot grasp how people don't see this.

You have to be wilfully blind at this point.

Funny Iranians hated me on here when I said Iran is abandoning the Axis of Resistance back in 2024.

Which not only did they abandon, but ASSISTED in their decapitations.

And now Iranians will continue hating me because of the hard truth that

Iran has submitted to Saudi Arabia.

If you can't see this, it's because you remain blind to it. You're a fan girl judging events by emotional attachment to resistance slogans rather than by shifts in who can impose costs and who must absorb constraints.

The conflict operated as calibrated theatre.

This was so obvious that I timed the ceasefire almost to perfection.

Hardline factions and overextended proxy commitments that had prevented necessary concessions were addressed during this crisis window.

Like Hezbollah, the IRGC went through a severe degradation phase.

I said that they would since last year.

This was the functional purpose of this theatrical war.

Iran chose this path to preserve the state continuity. That choice required acceptance of regional limits defined by stronger actors.

Saudi Arabia holds the decisive position in the new arrangement.

GCC coordination, led by KSA, now sets the effective boundaries for Iranian action in the Gulf and the broader region.

Doesn't matter how much you hate the oil rich Arabs, or how obsessed you are with the Axis.

Whether you like it or not, diplomatic and economic pathways that once bypassed Riyadh because of Iran, now account for Saudi priorities as the baseline.

This, very clearly reflects the material distribution of leverage after the settlement closed. Iran retains sovereign functions and distant partnerships, but its capacity to disrupt Gulf stability or Levant dynamics at low cost has been curtailed entirely.

The emotional layers people are attached to blocks recognition of this reordering.

Commentators and analysts are looking at Iranian narratives of permanent defiance and simply assume that Iran came out on top.

Iran only SEEMS to have come out on top because the optics of it all makes the US look even worse off.

And that's by design. The only winner on the side of the west was the private sector power no one is accounting for.

Not America. Not Iran.

This "US-Iran war" was meant to produce an isolated America that has appeared to have lost control over global affairs,

a massive reconstruction and economic rerouting for Wall St private sector,

a new proxy-less Iran downgraded from a regional power player and integrated diplomatically with other players,

and a KSA-led GCC that would consolidate full control over the region.

I said all of this on this platform more than a year ago.

And that is exactly what has played out.

What comes next is reconstruction and diplomatic re-engagement occurring within parameters that reinforce GCC initiative. External powers with stakes in regional stability will route engagement accordingly.

No one sees Iran's submission yet because all surface coverage is emphasizing, is a dick measuring contest between Iran and the US for their fan girls.

Congratulations. You are that fan girl.

For everyone else who wants to understand geopolitics at its implications,

understand that the narratives are obscuring the decisive evidence that Iran can no longer sustain the level of regional projection that once challenged Saudi and GCC positions.

And understand that the ceasefire architecture, the subsequent diplomatic activity, and the energy market behavior,

all operate inside boundaries of the GCC. Iran has operated OUTSIDE those boundaries for 50 years.

The concessions on Iran are permanent on the regional dimension because it rests on enduring asymmetries.

In other words, Iran must now play within the boundaries of unfamiliar territory.

And Saudi Arabia commands this territory with superior economic scale, alliance cohesion within the GCC, and diplomatic centrality for Arab affairs.

Iran can try to balance this by maintaining a relationship hedging strategy at a distance, but those relationships do not restore local freedom of action.

And any attempt to reverse the shift through renewed high-risk operations would recreate the conditions that made the recent settlement necessary in the first place.

Iranian policy will now focus on internal stabilization that will require external economic arrangements. This will be led by the GCC. Saudi Arabia will extend its convening authority across most of what Iran will implement.

Other regional actors will calibrate their positions to the new centre of gravity. These changes will register as incremental. Their cumulative weight will produce a visibly smaller Iranian regional footprint measured against GCC positions.

The signs will become unavoidable.

The fan girls attached to emotional narratives will reinterpret each development as insignificant or reversible.

But analyze it objectively, and it will become clear that Iran traded regional leverage for state survival. And Saudi Arabia consolidated regional authority as the price of that trade.

And just know, those who cannot register this outcome are not short on information. Everything I have said on this tweet I have said many times over since Oct 2024.

But as I have learned the hard way,

those who understand, need no explanation.

Those who don't, no explanation is sufficient.

[Evan @EvanWritesOnX]

America losing the 'war' with Iran was the objective Trump had to achieve for his handlers.

That was his assignment. And he achieved it.

I know how that sounds.

But that's the truth.

The idea that America suddenly forgot how to win in bombing countries is a very moronic understanding of geopolitics, indicating those who think like this do not understand how power works.

For eighty years the US has been the host that housed the most powerful private sector the world has ever seen.

This private sector, established the dollar as the world's settlement system, it instituted the Treasury market as the vault where the planet stores its savings, it set up the Pentagon as the collection agency, and gave life to Wall Street as the engine that decides where money goes.

The capital that was born out of this, was never loyal to America. It needed America while America was useful.

That moment has passed.

The factories are gone, the politics are frozen, the debt is a number no one expects to be paid back in anything that holds value, and the dollar's share of global reserves has been bleeding for twenty years, from around 71% at the turn of the century into the high 50s now, with gold and bilateral settlement absorbing what leaves.

The replacement platforms; your Gulf capital, the Chinese settlement rails and the wider BRICS plumbing, are getting stronger on the exact measures where America rots.

When that gap opens, capital does what it did when it left Amsterdam for London and London for New York.

It writes the dead host down and moves to the next one, shifting its ownership across quietly and letting the old shell collapse in public.

So the weakness you are watching is real. But it is also the plan.

A tired hegemon is a sad story that helps no one.

A hated hegemon is an asset, and the hatred gets harvested two ways.

The first is migration.

Every sanction, every tariff threat aimed at a supposed ally, every veto for Israel, every carrier group parked off a coast, teaches every government that leaning on the American system is a dead end.

American coercion used to produce obedience.

Now, it produces defection; pushing states into the alternative system the same capital networks already built and already control.

America has become the recruiter for the order designed to bury it.

The second is the alibi.

When the host can no longer carry the weight, someone has to take the blame, and it cannot be the money that ran the whole thing. So the collapse gets a cover story the American public will buy, that the country was hijacked, betrayed, dragged into other people's wars by foreign cash and a rotten establishment.

That story is already being built, and its sharpest version is the claim that Israel controls America, a line that points every angry citizen toward foreign corruption and away from the capital and the policy class that actually drew the plans.

The hatred is the fuel for the exit.

It has to be loaded before it can be burned.

This is why America is spending its one irreplaceable asset in broad daylight, in Gaza, in Ukraine, in one confrontation after another. That asset was never the military.

It was actually impunity, the power to break the rules and pay nothing, and it is being incinerated on camera in a way that does not regenerate.

Understand that when it comes to America and the transnational private sector, the system wears two faces, like good cop bad cop.

One is the brute, the one you are allowed to hate. The other is the reasonable partner who arrives after the brute has done his work, offering to help you rebuild on terms that look kind next to what just happened to you.

Both serve the same owner, and the hatred aimed at the first is what makes the second look like salvation.

America is the brute now, and the role is being fed to it on purpose, because its name is already ruined and there is nothing left to spend.

The reasonable partner is the TPS in fresh clothes, working in the dark by design. It does not sanction you. It arrives as patient capital offering a settlement rail outside the dollar and a reconstruction check instead of an ultimatum. It is the IMF racket Washington ran for fifty years with the logo changed.

We have watched this exact play before, run end to end, on the boogeyman the West built.

Iran spent thirty years cast as eternally two weeks from a bomb, a label that was never about the bomb and always about the use, a villain whose existence justified the bases, the weapons sales, the grip on every nervous monarchy nearby. Iran did the destabilizing, ate the sanctions and the assassinations, and the arrangement quietly paid everyone holding a bet on it.

Now the same role gets handed to the US. America does the coercion, takes the disgust, and stands cast as the one thing blocking a multipolar world everyone else claims to be building in good faith.

That is also how every other state gets handled from here, and the loop has no honest way out.

A government steps out of line, or just sits on something the money wants?

Washington gets pointed at it: tariffs, sanctions, a recognition fight, a banking cutoff, a fleet. The pain and the fear shoves the target toward the alternative rails, which was the whole purpose.

If the government refuses and defies Washington to its face, the trap shuts from the other side, through a currency attack and a managed crisis, and on the far side its best assets get bought up cheap by patient money on terms it could never have been forced to sign in calm weather.

Obey and you are swallowed as a partner. Resist and you are swallowed as a fire sale. Both doors lead to the same room, and the brute exists to keep you walking through one of them.

There is no army required for any of this. You do not invade an economy. You distress it, you close its options, and then you write the check. The wars are just the expensive, unsubtle version of a result that money buys at a discount.

Global capital has every reason to move to the rising platform and none to defend a dying one. The capital still chained to American power, the defense base, the enforcement apparatus, has every reason to keep doing the brutal work that feeds it, right up to the end. Each plays its own hand. The hands land on an America that does the dirty work, eats the blame, and gets left behind.

So before you call the man at the top stupid, ask who profits from him looking stupid.

Trump is a FIC representative. Every move he makes, benefits private sector power when you're assuming he is meant to make America great again.

He is expediting the hate for America, in preparation for the new multipolar order.

And understand that America is no longer the enemy.

It's the capital allocators that have exited the dead country and are housing themselves across the globe.

[Evan @EvanWritesOnX]

Trump says Israel wouldn't exist without him.

He goes after Netanyahu in public.

He floats the idea that maybe Syria should be the one to handle Hezbollah.

He's reportedly unfreezing Iranian money and openings channels for a $300 billion investment.

He says he has no interest in regime change in Tehran.

And with half the internet insisting Israel owns Washington, despite Epstein files owning these leaders,

Trump flatly declares Netanyahu will do whatever he asks.

Netanyahu holds a defeatist speech, basically reinforcing Trump's power.

Then you have this US-Iran war that gets written off everywhere as the most pointless war in living memory;

a war that started, did almost nothing, and stopped.

Nobody can hold all of that without it falling apart in their head.

If all this looks like paradoxical chaos to you, it means you don't understand geopolitics or in the least, have been brainwashed to interpret reported events as the source of truth.

If you've followed me long enough, you know my read and you know I've said all this before.

Israel does not run American foreign policy. Israel is the most valuable asset American foreign policy holds, and there's a difference between an asset that's treasured and an asset that has turned into liability.

When the principal decides to trade the asset, the asset can't stop him, and a sitting president is disciplining an Israeli prime minister on camera while that prime minister's expansion project becomes inconvenient.

For thirty years the region ran on one bet. Iran would eventually lose. Iran played the boogeyman, forever two weeks from a bomb and never getting there, the permanent and defeat-able threat.

That role paid everyone.

It kept American forces, arms sales, and leverage in the region under the banner of containment.

It gave the defense machine a procurement cycle with no end date. It gave Israel cover to run its expansion under an existential enemy.

And it paid Iran, who got reach and Shia influence across Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Yemen, and a standing on the Arab street no Arab government could match.

As long as everyone assumed Iran would eventually be beaten, the smart move was to keep the tension at exactly the right temperature and never let it boil.

A controlled threat, not an existential one. The conflict was the product.

Then Iran stopped digging its own grave. Tehran looked at the boogeyman role and decided it no longer paid, because the proxies that once kept Israel from finishing its work had become the ceiling on Iran's own future, the thing locking it out of the Gulf normalization track and the capital flows and the integrated order the Gulf and BRICS were building.

So Iran started shedding the skin. Proxies phased down. Strikes on its own commanders absorbed with a calm that doesn't match a state fighting for survival.

The moment Iran moved, everyone's math moved.

The Gulf doesn't want a war, because it's mid-construction on an economic project a war would burn down, and a calm Iran inside the tent is worth more to Riyadh than a bombed Iran outside it.

The transnational private sector doesn't want it either, because no version of a real US-Iran war avoids the Strait of Hormuz, an oil shock, a global recession, and a generational bill, and the people who allocate capital in Washington have no appetite to pay it.

That left one player whose project still needed the old game running. Netanyahu's expansion faction, the one actor who still needed the existential enemy, because the enemy was the permission slip for everything else.

So what was the point of the war?

The war was a soft landing built to avoid the real one.

A settlement like this normally dies in the room because nobody trusts anybody to move first.

A managed crisis fixes that. Under the cover of a war nobody has to move first and nobody has to trust anybody, everybody moves at once, and the war becomes the enforcement no treaty could provide.

Iran got to shed its proxies signaling compliance to opponents, while telling its base it was overwhelmed, not betrayed. Netanyahu got to claim he neutralized the threat while complying. The defense machine got its activity. The Gulf got the board cleared. Every player walked out of that pointless war with an unsolvable problem solved.

Same with Syria, where everyone got the read backwards. Assad's fall didn't hand Syria to Israel. The mercenary tools that broke Syria in 2011 under American and Israeli handlers are now under Turkish and Gulf handlers, and the agenda flipped from fragmentation to consolidation.

A unified Syria under Ankara and the Gulf is a wall against Israeli expansion, which is why Israel kept bombing a country it supposedly just won. When Trump says maybe Syria should handle Hezbollah, he's handing the cleanup to the new owner of the neighborhood.

The cleanup guy changed.

The $300 billion is predominantly Gulf money, and will be routed to Wall St players.

A calm, integrated Iran isn't a security headache to the people who allocate capital.

It's a market.

Reconstruction, energy, a hundred million consumers, a new node in the trade architecture the Gulf is building. For thirty years war was the product. Now integration is the product, and the $300 billion is the TPS entry fee.

None of this is paradoxical. Everything can be clearly mapped out if you choose to submerge your ego, deprogram what the West has taught you and your misunderstanding of who is in charge.

Some have woken up. Most still haven't. I have been saying all this for almost 2 years on here. Go through my timeline.

There is no paradox.

Private sector power has decided to swap military-first foreign policy in the Middle East, to a policy of economic boom.

For that to happen, de-militarization, de-nuclearization must be conducted across the region.

This is coming. Like I've said this was coming for almost 2 years now.

And once Middle East settles, in the way I have said it will,

the next seismic shift is in Central Asia, the band of former Soviet republics wedged between Russia, China, and Iran.

It will break into an open great-power contest somewhere 2-3 years from now. Again I am calling this early.

And once again, hardly anyone outside a few mining desks and foreign-policy shops will see this coming.

[Evan @EvanWritesOnX]

If you truly understand geopolitics, the Musk - Jack Ma contrast is the best example of how different power structures treat two visionary entrepreneurs.

One treats private scaling as the primary engine and subordinates everything else to it.

The other treats private scaling as a conditional tool that must remain subordinate to centralized continuity.

Two very distinct power architectures.

In the US, capital allocators extract fees most efficiently when wealth concentrates upward. Large asset managers and index vehicles earn a percentage of assets under management; the bigger and more concentrated the pools, the higher and more stable the fee income with minimal marginal effort.

This logic rewards actors who compound at the top; whether through technology platforms, defense-linked contracts, energy transitions, or satellite infrastructure,

while treating broad citizen welfare as a secondary externality rather than a binding constraint. Subsidies, regulatory carve-outs, tax treatment, and procurement flows consistently align with the return profiles of these allocators.

The US state does not function as an independent sovereign imposing requirements on society for welfare. Its a platform that clears obstacles for private sector power.

When this produces extreme outcomes at the bottom; like record high homelessness, the system registers it as a local governance issue rather than a structural failure requiring reversal of the upward tilt.

China operates under the opposite priority. The party-state apparatus retains decisive authority over capital direction, financial architecture, and information flows.

China halted Ant Group because Ant was about to load the entire Chinese consumer-credit market onto its own balance sheet;

systemic risk dressed up as innovation.

Cutting it down wasn't jealousy. It was preventing uncontrolled private autonomy from threatening public affairs.

The IPO was halted, the founder was sidelined, and the entity was restructured under tighter supervision.

This was not punishment for success per se; it was enforcement of the rule that no private actor may grow large enough to constrain the state’s ability to direct resources toward its own continuity priorities.

Visible street homelessness in major Chinese cities remains bare minimal because the state treats housing stability and public order as core legitimacy inputs.

Containment, relocation, shelter provision, and suppression of visible disorder are executed as operational requirements, not optional welfare spending.

The American pattern therefore produces trillion-scale personal fortunes for those whose activities feed the dominant extraction chains, alongside accelerating visible social costs that the system is structurally reluctant to internalize.

The Chinese pattern clips individual compounding when it risks becoming an independent power center, while delivering tighter management of visible disorder.

Both outcomes follow directly from which actor holds final authority. And it's not Elon or Jack.

It's transnational private capital networks that migrate toward highest returns, or a state apparatus that will not permit private networks to outgrow its control layer.

[Evan @EvanWritesOnX]

Israel has ZERO autonomy,

zero control,

zero leverage,

over this deal with Iran.

Netanyahu is on Trumps side.

The rest of Israel will watch this deal substantiate before their eyes and wonder what just happened.

Just like the majority of the people trying to still understand all this.

Go through my timeline.

I explain everything.

Go all the way back to start of last year.

I’ve explained everything since then.

Middle East has been placed on a new trajectory before Trump became president,

and people still think WW3 is coming.

This has been a major learning experience for me, as to how people are the architects of their own failure.

You educate them explicitly at length, and they still voluntarily choose to be ignorant.

Then they wonder why opportunities never come their way.

[Evan @EvanWritesOnX]

Iran has traded its power projection model for an integration model.

The central move is a swap of leverage type, not a surrender of leverage.

For four decades Iran bought regional weight cheaply through proxies, a low-cost, high-deniability way to sit at tables far larger than its economy justified.

Shedding that network removes a liability that had become costly, isolating, and an invitation to strikes, but it strips Iran of its primary bargaining instrument.

The plan, the dominant strategy, therefore, is to replace ideological leverage with structural leverage, and Iran’s enduring structural asset is geography.

It is the land bridge between the Gulf, Central Asia, the Caucasus, and South Asia, the spine of the North-South corridor that Russia and India need, and the holder of the world’s second-largest gas reserves.

The forward strategy is to monetise that position: open frozen fields to investment, sell transit and energy rather than resistance, and convert a pariah’s isolation into a bloc node’s insulation through BRICS and SCO settlement channels that route around the dollar and the IMF.

Normalization abroad is being cashed in for stability and legitimacy at home. That is why the pivot is best read as conversion rather than abandonment:

the nuclear program shifts from weapons trajectory to threshold bargaining chip, and the proxy relationships are more likely mothballed as reactivatable insurance than genuinely dismantled.

Iran is preserving optionality while changing posture.

The binding constraint is who sets the terms of the economic opening. A weak, capital-starved Iran negotiating field development from a position of need risks becoming an energy vassal;

most plausibly to China as the anchor buyer and financier,

rather than a sovereign partner.

Iran’s only real defense against that is competing demand; GCC normalization, Indian investment through Chabahar, European re-entry if a deal holds.

Whether Iran ends up empowered or captured by reintegration depends almost entirely on whether it can keep more than one suitor in the room.

I think the most likely path over the next two to five years is Iran aiming for hedged reintegration.

It will deepen Chinese, Russian, and Gulf economic ties and push transit-corridor and energy investment hard, while quietly retaining nuclear threshold capacity for non military use and probably aim to maintain some degree of proxy ties that will sit dormant/rebranded as insurance policy.

Iran will be prioritising regime continuity and domestic relief over any return to regional projection.

The institution survives by changing what it sells.

The terms of the first major field-development contract and whether a second large buyer materialises is the single data point that will tell us whether Iran is integrating as a partner or being absorbed as a supplier.

[Evan @EvanWritesOnX]

What people thought America could be - a beacon of democracy - was the last thing it became. In reality, it’s a corporate machine that has given rise to the Transnational Private Sector (TPS).

The TPS is a coalition of corporate giants, led by the Financial-Industrial Complex (FIC) with firms like JPMorgan, Goldman, and BlackRock, alongside the Military-Industrial Complex (MIC), Consumer-Industrial Complex (CIC), and Techno-Industrial Complex (TIC).

This collective force operates beyond borders, transcends nationality, and prioritizes profit over public welfare.

When Jamie Dimon, JPMorgan’s CEO, warned in October 2024 that wars in Ukraine and the Middle East could destabilize the global economy, he wasn’t just forecasting. He was asserting the TPS’s dominance over policy.

To understand this power, you have to examine the game theory driving the TPS’s clash with nations.

This concept that I have developed deliberately sets aside the idea of good, evil, right, or wrong. Geopolitical dynamics are examined through the lens of incentives, power, and measurable outcomes, not moral judgments. The focus is the strategic interplay of actors, stripped of ethical narratives.

___

Game theory provides a framework for understanding geopolitical strategies by analyzing the incentives that drive actors’ decisions.

There are two distinct game types: finite and infinite. Both these games shape global interactions. Finite games are zero-sum with defined endpoints, and clear winners and losers. It’s akin to a corporate quarter where profit maximization is the sole objective.

One player wins, the other loses.

Infinite games, conversely, lack a conclusion, have no end, prioritizing sustained participation through long-term stability, akin to a nation’s multi-generational survival strategy.

States operate within infinite games.

They do not expire. They do not tap out.

Their permanence compels them to prioritize enduring stability over immediate gains. For instance, China’s $1 trillion Belt and Road Initiative, spanning decades, secures global trade networks to ensure long-term economic influence. BRICS nations, through $10 billion in yuan-based trade, foster mutual economic resilience for mutual prosperity.

This cooperative approach engenders a form of morality rooted in reciprocity: mutual support today ensures mutual survival tomorrow. Such strategies reflect a commitment to societal development and stability, as states must maintain legitimacy and resources for their populations over time.

The TPS operates as a corporate entity, fundamentally detached from societal obligations. Unlike states, the TPS bears no responsibility to citizens, public welfare, or long-term development. Its imperative is profit maximization within finite time horizons, driven by shareholder demands and market cycles.

This corporate structure compels the TPS to engage in finite games, where immediate financial returns supersede all else. For example, the TPS’s imposition of significant tariffs on global nations in 2025 aimed to secure economic leverage, prioritizing short-term gains over regional stability. Such actions reflect a rational, amoral calculus: profit is the sole metric, unburdened by considerations of societal impact or ethical norms.

Finite games, by their nature, foster amorality. The TPS’s focus on short-term victories - such as market dominance through military coercion, currency wars, tariffs, and resource extraction - disregards long-term consequences, as corporate entities are not accountable for societal fallout.

In contrast, infinite games cultivate morality through sustained cooperation, as states must invest in trust to ensure their longevity.

The TPS has been playing finite-game rules in an infinite-game arena. When this happens, we have a mixed, unbalanced game.

A mixed game provokes backlash.

Picture a player disobeying the rules.

That's your TPS.

And it is banding states together against it to rebalance the game. The BRICS formation or the systematic de-dollarization initiatives are a strategic response, realigning global power to counter TPS dominance.

It's the game recorrecting itself.

This interplay of mixed-game dynamic is where the TPS’s amoral, zero-sum, profit-driven maneuvers clash with states’ cooperative, stability-oriented strategies.

A payoff matrix illustrates this easily.

1. The TPS secures immediate profits but risks isolation as states band together.

2. States achieve gradual stability but sacrifice short-term gains.

The TPS’s corporate nature - unencumbered by societal duties - locks it into finite games, while states’ obligations to their populations drive infinite-game cooperation.

This tension, rooted in divergent incentives, underscores the global struggle between short-term profiteering and long-term resilience, setting the stage for the TPS’s operational framework.

___

What is the TPS?

Picture the TPS as a colossal corporate skyscraper, its gleaming glass facade reflecting trillions in valuation that makes entire economies appear as a speck of dust.

At its pinnacle, the FIC - JPMorgan, Goldman, BlackRock, Vanguard, etc. - occupies the C-suite, a sleek executive suite where profit reigns supreme.

Below, the building hums with activity: the MIC (Lockheed , Raytheon, etc.) fortifies the security wing, the CIC (Exxon, Coca-Cola, Pfizer, Walmart, etc.) drives the bustling sales floor, and the TIC (Apple, Amazon, Microsoft, Nvidia, etc.) powers the innovation labs.

Each department operates with calculated precision, yet all answer to the FIC’s shareholder-driven directives, tethered to a singular goal: maximizing returns, unbound by borders or public welfare.

This skyscraper’s foundation is the United States, not as a sovereign nation but as a subjugated platform, meticulously engineered to amplify the TPS’s global reach. Decades of deregulation - culminating in the 1999 Glass-Steagall repeal - dismantled barriers, granting the FIC unchecked freedom to amass trillions.

Tax breaks and billions in defense budgets fuel the machine, while the US government, reduced to an extension of the TPS, prioritizes corporate efficiency over its citizens.

These American citizens are left to navigate the fallout. Mounting debt, eroding wages, while the TPS pursues wealth on a global stage. The Federal Reserve, calibrating monetary policy to stabilize markets, stands ready to pivot when BRICS’s multipolar trade order emerges, ensuring the TPS remains a formidable force in a restructured economy.

Unlike states, bound to their people and long-term development, the TPS owes nothing to society. Its corporate essence - divorced from public accountability - drives its finite-game strategy, where profit trumps all. This skyscraper doesn’t serve nations; it commands them, reshaping the global order to its design.

Let’s rewind back to the post-World War II era, when the MIC commanded the C-suite of the TPS. In those days, the MIC titans like Lockheed Martin and Raytheon held the ultimate power, with ample defense budgets out of taxpayer pockets fueling a war machine that defined America’s global reach. Fresh off its victory as a superpower, the US wielded unmatched military might, and the MIC capitalized on this dominance to shape foreign policy.

Every contract, every missile, reinforced its grip.

When nations resisted the TPS’s economic orbit, the MIC responded with unrelenting force. Iraq’s Saddam Hussein dared to sell oil in euros in 2000; by 2003, a NATO-led invasion, backed by $100 billion in MIC contracts, dismantled his regime, securing $500 billion in oil reserves. Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi pushed anti-dollar policies in 2011; NATO’s barrage, fueled by $160 billion in oil deals, reduced his government to rubble. The MIC’s dominance stemmed from a simple truth: war was profitable, and its C-suite reign ensured the TPS thrived on conflict, unburdened by societal costs.

The tide started to shift in the 1980s, as financial deregulation reshaped the skyscraper’s power structure. The 1999 Glass-Steagall repeal, among other reforms, unleashed the FIC to amass unprecedented wealth, with their trillions in collective asset pool out-sizing economies by the 2000s. The FIC mastered hedging, by betting on every market outcome - guaranteeing profits whether markets soared or crashed.

Unlike the MIC, reliant on wars, or the CIC, vulnerable to disruptions, the FIC thrived in any climate, pocketing billions in equities trading during stability or significant derivatives profits amid chaos. By 2015–2020, the FIC, sensing greater collective returns, orchestrated a quiet coup, redirecting the TPS toward diplomacy through billions in Gulf energy deals that bolstered TIC’s innovation and CIC’s margins.

The FIC is unique in the sense that its role transcends coordination. It hedges against its own departments, ensuring profits even if they falter. If the CIC’s retail collapses or the MIC’s wars misfire, the FIC shorts their stocks, securing significant derivatives profits. This ruthless pragmatism drives its push for Middle East stability, as war disrupts the lucrative Gulf partnerships. The FIC is also accelerating the BRICS’s $10 billion yuan-based trade order, positioning itself to profit in a multipolar future.

Consequently, within the TPS skyscraper, an inner game theory unfolds - cooperative yet fiercely competitive.

When cooperative, the TPS is absolutely devastating. In Iraq, Libya, and Ukraine, the MIC’s destruction paved the way for CIC’s cheap imports and FIC’s oil bets, reaping billions while nations crumbled. It threatens Iran with MIC-led war to sweeten billions in Gulf deals, boosting TIC’s tech contracts. It instigates currency wars on Turkey, devaluing the lira, so CIC’s Marriott locks in tourism profits.

Competitively, the FIC wields departments as leverage. It will coordinate with other departments for collective gain but it will also defect for better return on investment. It will conduct tariffs adversely affecting the CIC if it means vassalizing states in the future. It possesses calculated pragmatism capable of supplanting the MIC’s warlord era to steer the skyscraper toward stable profits in any climate.

Not just wars and destruction.

___

Today, the FIC commands the C-suite, and it is orchestrating a strategic trifecta that reshapes the global order with calculated precision.

From its executive suite, the FIC surveys a world in flux, deploying three interconnected maneuvers.

Consolidation. Vassalization. BRICS alignment.

The goal?

To secure unrivaled dominance in a multipolar world.

Each move, executed with the amoral pragmatism of a finite-game strategist, positions the TPS to thrive in the present while engineering a lucrative foothold in the emerging future.

First, the TPS consolidates power within the US, its subjugated platform, by acquiring struggling small and medium enterprises (SME's) battered by tariffs and policies championed by its FIC mouthpiece, President Trump. In 2025, these tariffs - essentially taxes on imports - have spiked costs, squeezing SMEs reliant on global supply chains. The FIC, sensing opportunity, sweeps in, buying up these firms at bargain prices, folding them into the TPS’s vast empire. This consolidation strengthens the CIC and TIC, ensuring the skyscraper’s domestic foundation remains robust while smaller players falter. It’s a ruthless finite-game play: the TPS absorbs weakened assets, bolstering its retail engine without regard for local communities or economic equity.

Second, the TPS vassalizes vulnerable nations, tightening its global grip. Tariffs targeting over 20 export-dependent countries - not accounting for the EU - have crippled their economies, crashing markets and eroding confidence. The FIC steps forward with predatory aid, offering loans and significant bond investments, like BlackRock’s new stake in German bonds last quarter, to stabilize budgets. These lifelines come with ironclad strings: debt binds nations to TPS agendas, transforming them into exploitation hubs stripped of autonomy. Governments, desperate to survive, cede control over resources and policies, their sovereignty reduced to a footnote in the FIC’s ledger. This vassalization mirrors the MIC’s historical conquests but swaps bombs for bonds, a subtler yet equally devastating finite-game victory.

Third, the TPS accelerates the rise of a BRICS-led trade order, not as a rival but as a future arena for profit. By fracturing the dollar’s dominance through tariffs, the FIC paves the way for BRICS’s $10 billion yuan-based trade system, a multipolar framework gaining traction. This is no accident. The TPS is positioning itself to dominate this new order. Investments like significant stakes in BRICS bonds and billions in Gulf partnerships ensure the FIC’s influence spans both systems. The Federal Reserve, attuned to this shift, stands poised to recalibrate monetary policy when the time comes, keeping the TPS’s financial arsenal sharp. In vassalized nations, the TPS entrenches itself, ready to dictate terms when BRICS consolidates.

The TPS’s trifecta is operating with surgical precision and chilling efficiency. Small and medium enterprises, crushed by tariffs, vanish into the TPS’s portfolio, bolstering its domestic empire. Export-dependent nations, along with Europe, kneel under the weight of FIC debt with their economies reeling, reduced to vassalized hubs serving corporate whims. The BRICS’s new trade order, quietly fueled by the TPS’s tariff-driven fracture of the dollar system, rises with the FIC’s fingerprints all over it.

This is game theory’s mixed-game dynamic unfolding: the TPS’s finite-game trifecta pursuing immediate profits, where its amoral payoff structure prioritizes short-term dominance over societal stability.

Yet, each of these zero-sum moves provokes states to embrace the infinite-game cooperation model.

The BRICS’s trade bloc iterates strategies to counter TPS hegemony, by seeking long-term equilibrium through reciprocal trust. The FIC, anticipating this, adopts a dominant strategy: hedging with Gulf partnerships and BRICS bonds by dangling MIC threats to profit in any outcome.

The FIC envisions a future of a restructured skyscraper, with its C-suite commanding a BRICS-aligned trade order, with vassalized states as mere cogs in the machine.

This isn’t adaptation.

It’s the TPS leveraging finite-game aggression and infinite-game foresight to rewrite the global rules once again, ensuring its dominance in a multipolar world.

[Evan @EvanWritesOnX]

The Iran-US deal that’s taking shape right now will mark a significant shift in how the Middle East manages conflict and economic flows.

Western private sector power has for the past 50 years, strengthened its position as the main external power capable of both applying military pressure while simultaneously shaping the terms of the region.

After this deal, the TPS will retain influence over key regional security and economic decisions without requiring permanent new bases or occupations.

Iran will operate from a weaker position. Everything that the MOU stipulates will constrain and reduce Irans ability to leverage the Strait or project power as freely as before.

Iran will pivot to continue working through regional players, but with less room for autonomy. This will be the cost of survival as a state on its own terms.

Gulf Arab states gain asymmetric power, first by neutralizing a longstanding hostile Shia power across the levant.

Second, by deploying its massive sovereign wealth fund across the region to buy control of hard assets that will ultimately complement its soft power.

This deal’s coverage will force all proxy militants and networks to end their operation.

Hezbollah, Hamas, Iraqi PMF, Houthis, will all, on long enough timeframe, cease exist, rebrand, integrate, or in the very least, totally de-militarize.

This peace deal will make sponsors on all sides have no incentive to keep proxies.

Overtime, this new arrangement will push Iran toward more economic and diplomatic hedging. Tehran will seek greater integration into alternative trade and financial networks.

On a structural level, the deal points toward a Middle East where conflicts are settled through pressure followed by negotiated limits rather than total victory or regime change.

Energy routes and economic interests will take clearer priority over open-ended fighting.

This will transform the region into a state of predictability which inevitably attracts investment and trade.

This will further reinforce the cycle of peace, and force the broader regions across MENA to also end their conflicts.

Middle East will become the new centre of trade and finance. It will become the new centre of consumption.

This peace deal will mark the beginning of major capital flight out of Western countries, deployed into the Middle East.

It will mark the Middle East as the new global consumer base, while the Western countries will be left to continue on their downward trajectory of economic deterioration and population decline.

This has all happened before. It’s nothing new.

And it will happen again.

Same playbook.

Different players.

Iran-US deal is the trigger.

[Evan @EvanWritesOnX]

The Americans will sign the deal.

They will respect it. So will Iran.

Iran will have their money unfrozen.

Violence in the region is coming to a permanent end.

[Evan @EvanWritesOnX]

To you, and probably many Americans,

this looks like a man bragging about his own failure.

Only if you assumed he was trying to shrink the deficit.

He wasn't. I wrote this April last year when Americans got excited about prosperity.

Trump told the country tariffs would bring the factories home. That onshoring is the story you sell to a voter in Ohio.

The deficit widening though, is exactly what you get when a country keeps buying from abroad and building less at home.

That's the condition these policies preserve, not the one they fix. The people who designed this knew the factories weren't coming back, because rebuilding American industry was never what the tariffs were for.

America doesn't make most of what it consumes anymore. Its manufacturing left for cheaper labor decades ago, and what stayed behind was finance, technology, and consumption.

People call that decline.

The corporations that ran the move experience it as relocating to higher margins, because the factories were the low-value end of the chain and they kept the end that prints money.

That leaves the US in an unusual spot. It isn't chained to protecting a manufacturing base, because it barely has one. It isn't really chained to national interest either, because the government has become less a sovereign and more a service desk for that corporate and financial sector.

A country with little of its own to protect can pick up a weapon that everyone else is forced to absorb.

That weapon is the tariff.

A tariff is a tax on imports, and someone has to pay it. The foreign exporter and the American shopper split the cost between them, and the money lands in the US Treasury. From there it flows back to the corporate sector as tax cuts and subsidies.

The citizen pays more at the till, the foreign producer earns less on every sale, and the people who already run the country collect on both ends.

The deficit doesn't enter the math anywhere. It was never the target.

The country on the other side of the tariff is in a different position. Say it actually makes things. Its factories employ its people, and its government is obligated to keep those people working. When a tariff cuts its sales, it can't shrug.

It spends, on subsidies to keep plants open, on cheap credit to keep workers paid, on whatever stops the bleeding. It goes into housekeeping mode, burning its own reserves just to stand still.

China can survive that. It has the depth to take a hit and adapt. Most countries don't. A mid-sized industrial economy in Europe has no reserve cushion to patch the hole, and the moment it diverts its cash into defending jobs, it falls behind, and it becomes something to be bought cheap.

That is the entire game.

One country is forced into defense, spending its own money to hold onto jobs it can't afford to lose, while the other spends nothing and plays offense, because it already handed the cost to its own citizens and pocketed the difference. The point of the policy is to pull that money in and route it upward, and the American consumer is simply where the money comes from.

The corporations don't sit still while this runs. As a country bleeds, they shift sourcing somewhere cheaper, the way the big retailers moved to Vietnam years ago. The finance firms bet against the weakened currency. The disruption itself becomes the profit, because instability is something they are built to monetize and a stable foreign government is not.

Your country, is run by some of the sharpest, cut-throat zero-sum players the world has ever seen.

You are assuming the goal is national prosperity, then you grade that policy a failure against that goal. The people writing the policy don't work for the nation.

They work for a corporate and financial network that has no country, no voters, and no lasting loyalty to the place it operates out of.

It goes wherever the returns are best. For most of the last century that was America. As the world splits into rival blocs, that network is moving to sit at the new table with an advantage, locking in its position before its rivals can organize one of their own, and it is using American policy and American wallets to pay for the move.

Trump sold the country one story while the policy quietly did something else, and the distance between the two is the whole point.

The deficit post isn't a man too dumb to feel embarrassed. It's a man whose real employers don't care about that number, because it was never their objective.

They got their revenue, the consumers covered it, and their rivals are stuck on defense. From where they sit, that post is a status update on a plan that's working.

[Evan @EvanWritesOnX]

Africa was never colonized,

America was. Canada was. Australia.

Africa was merely carved up with the intention of installing local elites who served Western interests.

Local elites who locked entire regions into permanent dependency.

Borders were drawn by the West to fracture potential rivals, while institutions were rigged for extraction.

And when formal rule ended, the same powers simply shifted to debt traps, IMF conditions, and selective foreign investment that kept real power flowing outward.

Africa’s rich resources guaranteed endless Western re-engagement on terms that prevented any strong, independent state from ever emerging.

Post-independence struggles were not a failure of local governance; they were the intended result.

Singapore, with almost no natural resources, held zero strategic value.

No minerals to loot, no chokepoints to dominate, no ethnic fractures to exploit for leverage.

LKY was therefore free to build a genuine sovereign project focused on human capital, strict discipline, and port logistics without the constant interference of Western financial and military interests.

Scarcity, in this case, became the island’s blessing.

[Evan @EvanWritesOnX]

Araghchi is the new Shah, with a far weaker hand.

Iran's foreign minister is now the man Washington negotiates with, working to bring Iran back toward the "international community" after fifty years outside it.

The last Iranian to hold that role was the Shah.

He was the anchor of American strategy in the Gulf. The US sold him its best weapons, Iranian oil sold at the center of the world market, and Iran policed the region so Washington did not have to.

That is what real bargaining power looks like.

But by the 1970s the Shah had grown independent. He pushed oil prices higher, built an ambitious nuclear program, opened to the Soviet Union, kept quiet ties with Israel, advocated for Palestinian statehood, and settled his old border dispute with Iraq.

He wanted the region calm and run on his own terms, and a peaceful, independent Iran at peace with its neighbors turned out to be worth less to Washington than a hostile one would be.

Carter did not lose Iran by accident. US diplomatic cables declassified decades later, show Khomeini opening a secret channel to the Carter administration from his exile outside Paris in January 1979, reassuring the Americans that Iranian oil would keep flowing and that he held no hostility toward them.

He asked Washington to tell the Iranian army to stand down rather than rally behind the Shah's last prime minister, and Washington did roughly that. Carter sent General Huyser to Tehran, and the practical effect of his mission was to keep the Iranian generals from the coup that might have saved the monarchy.

The one force capable of stopping the revolution was talked down by the Shah's own patron, while that patron was being privately assured the new order would protect American interests.

The reason a hostile Iran was worth more becomes clear the moment you look at what American foreign policy represented at that time. A peaceful, independent Iran gave Washington very little to do in the Gulf.

A revolutionary, threatening Iran justified everything that followed: the Carter Doctrine of 1980, a permanent regional military command, the arming of Iraq against Iran through the 1980s, the absolute weaponization of Israel, decades of weapons sales to nervous Gulf monarchies, and bases that never left.

The claim that Iran was always weeks away from a bomb, renewed by administration after administration for thirty years without ever resolving, was never meant to resolve. It was the standing license for the presence, the arms sales, and the wars.

Iran paid for the role of permanent enemy with the very strength the Shah had once enjoyed. The currency that was stable and convertible under the Shah now trades past 1.1 million to the dollar.

Oil that once sold at the heart of the global market now moves at about 1.1 million barrels a day, almost all of it to China, at a discount that exists because no one else will openly buy it. The regional network of Shia militias has dismantled across the region, and the 'nuclear program' that absorbed thirty years of sanctions has been declared bombed.

So Araghchi sits down to do the Shah's job with none of the Shah's assets. What he has that the Shah lacked is roots at home, which is why Iran survives invasion instead of collapsing in a season the way the monarchy did, and durability is not the same as bargaining power.

Washington spent fifty years turning Iran into the weaker party at this table, starting the day it decided the Shah was worth more gone than kept.

[Evan @EvanWritesOnX]

Trump saying he'd be honored to meet the Ayatollah is just Trump thanking Iran for 50 years of loyal service.

Nothing less. Nothing more.

You don't honor an enemy you've spent five decades calling the head of the snake.

You honor a business partner when the contract expires gracefully.

People forget how the Islamic Republic actually got started. The Shah was America's man until he got too expensive to keep around, and the paper trail on how he was cut loose isn't hidden anymore.

In 1979 Carter sat down with the British, French and German leaders at Guadeloupe and wrote the Shah off between meals.

That same month he sent a general to Tehran, and the Iranian army that could have crushed the revolution simply stood down and declared itself neutral.

Khomeini ran the whole thing from a villa outside Paris while the BBC pumped his sermons into Iran so reliably that Iranians started calling it Radio Ayatollah.

BBC's own Persian service in 2016, reported that Khomeini quietly messaged Carter's White House in 1979, telling Washington he wouldn't be a problem, that the oil would keep flowing, and he hated communists every bit as much as they did.

The man they would spend the next 50 years selling you as the great America-hater opened the whole thing by promising he was safe to deal with.

Washington traded a loyal Pahlavi king for a screaming cleric for one boring reason. A friendly Iran is one arms contract, and a hostile Iran is 50 years of arms contracts on top of the bases, the wars, and the fear that makes every nervous Gulf monarchy buy American protection at full price without ever asking for a receipt.

Pahlavi intended to unite the region, which would kill the arms market, so they reopened it with a revolution that split everything down the middle, Sunni against Shia, Saudi against Tehran, and kept the register ringing for half a century.

The Iran-Iraq war killed close to a million people through the 80s while America armed Baghdad in public and sold missiles to Tehran in private, working both ends of a fire it lit. Iran became the standing excuse for the fleet in Bahrain and the ring of bases around the Gulf. It was the threat behind the $110 billion arms deal Trump signed with the Saudis in 2017, the same threat that walked out of that Paris villa in 1979.

And it was the story that paid for everything, Iran "two weeks from a bomb" for 30 years running, a clock that never goes off because nobody ever wanted it to.

Iran took the villain role they were handed and ran with it, pushed their reach across Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Yemen, won real popularity on the Arab street for backing the Palestinians, and across all those decades never once hit Israel in a way that mattered and never once took a hit that ended them.

Nobody keeps an enemy alive that carefully for 50 years.

So when Trump says he'd be honored, he's signing the leaving card. Iran is dumping its proxies, the Hamas and Hezbollah leadership wiped out through 2024 with Tehran barely raising its voice, and the whole operation is being walked quietly over to the Gulf and BRICS and a normal seat at a table that doesn't need a bad guy anymore. The job is finished, so they're letting the help go with a handshake.

You can call it a conspiracy if it helps. But I read 50 years of what these two governments did rather than 50 years of what they announced,

and what they did was need each other the entire time, one to move the weapons and hold the bases, the other to buy its own survival by playing a villain that was written for it in a French town in 1978.

You'll see it confirmed soon enough if all these theatrical wars weren't sufficient to convince you otherwise. I've said this since late 2024.

Sanctions will be quietly easing, the bomb talk going silent, region wide de-nuclearization, de-militarization, Gulf money flowing into Tehran instead of out of it.

This is a man being thanked for his axis, on his way out the door for 50 years of work nobody is supposed to admit he did.

[Evan @EvanWritesOnX]

All proxies have layers to them with each layer running independently from each other.

Yes, Hezbollah are composed of ordinary men trying to defend their homeland.

That's one layer.

The second layer is that Hezbollah is also composed of an ideological layer within the Shia expansionist strategy.

The third layer is the state control of the resistance itself, channeling the ideology and the 'ordinary men defending their homeland' notion

toward the inevitable bargaining that will take place with the very adversary the resistance seeks to destroy.

We are living through Layer 3 right now. Which is why most people cannot make sense of what is happening in the Middle East. Iran is bargaining away its entire Shia axis for a seat at the table.

Layer 1 and Layer 2 are a means to an end. And these are the layers where most people latch on to.

Emotionally, ideologically, morally.

But only the third layer matters.

The most chilling form of control is when resistance believes it was born from pure defiance.

When in truth, it was planted by the very system it seeks to destroy.

Hezbollah believed they were architects of their fate, but the blueprint that enabled their inception,

was drafted by Jimmy Carter back in Washington.

Hezbollah carried the banner of resistance, ideological driven, unaware that their masters trace back to the same hands that shaped the conditions for the rise of Israel and Muslim disunity.

[Evan @EvanWritesOnX]

I wrote this up for my members months ago. The FT is only now running it.

Mohammed bin Zayed is handing the UAE over to his eldest son Khalid.

The brothers are reorganizing around him rather than competing.

Either MBZ keeps the President title while Khalid runs the country day to day, or there is a public step down presented as a generational change.

Both end in the same place, with Khalid in charge and the UAE carrying on with the same strategy it already has.

[Evan @EvanWritesOnX]

If I were the US, purely from a game theory perspective,

I’d be concerned watching the Middle East integrate into a unified front against my little pet project, Israel.

I’d see the UAE sidling up to Iran, the GCC patching things up with Qatar, and Saudi Arabia cozying up to Tehran through the sly hands of China and Russia,

shafting me out of the frame like a has-been actor.

I knew October 7, 2023 was the opening bell of a regional death match, a zero-sum battle pitting a newly united Middle East against my proxy state.

And I decided to sit back and let the chaos crown a winner.

But when Israel started failing to clean out those pesky Palestinians by the 2024 elections, I knew I had to face the music:

my golden goose was turning into rotting flesh.

So, I decide to amputate. I decided to divest.

Profitably, of course.

How?

Simple.

I’d short Israel like it’s a penny stock that's about to tank.
___

I’d turn Israel into my ultimate bargaining chip, a sacrificial pawn in my game.

I’d let them run wild, slaughtering Palestinians while racking up a cool $1 billion a day in war costs, for my MIC.

I’d watch their $50 billion economy choke under a $1 trillion liability, their cabinet implode into a circus of backstabbing clowns, and their global image fester like an open sore.

I’m divesting, after all, why not let it rot?

I’d slap a ceasefire on the table, to get approval from the GCC;

“I’m your new partner now, as promised, on board with the regional plan.”

I’d stonewall Turkey, Syria, Lebanon, and the whole Axis of Resistance, encouraging them to cool their jets while dangling a $40 billion Gaza rebuild and $15 billion in GCC aid as bait.

But I would simultaneously let Israel breach that ceasefire anyway. Because hey, that's extra bargaining chips for me. And I don't represent them. They're a bunch of genocidal Jews. I’d egg them on to overextend, to dig their own grave with every bomb.

I have to push just enough for no one to feel inclined to sabotage the regional plan.

I need to hold both cards.

Afterall I am the MIC king. They can either stand down and trust the process, or set fire to the entire region by invading my proxy state.

Either way, if they stand down, then we proceed with the GCC's plan. If they escalate and storm in, it’s just more fuel for my fire and we can pick up where we left off. I’d park my FIC on the sidelines, let my MIC rake in the profits from the carnage, and watch the body count climb.

The more people die, the merrier; every corpse is another dollar in my pocket.

And no one’s going to pin it on me. The world already hates Israel and thinks they've got me on a leash.

Why waste that narrative when it’s free leverage?

And as for the GCC and their new shiny future plan for the region,

I will signal to them; "I am still in charge. Israel is my asset. And I will let it burn itself out under my own volition, while we talk."

I know they're drooling for stability and for the establishment of a Palestinian state, but I’m not some charity case. I’m not handing it over on a silver platter. My British counterpart worked hard to colonize that region 70 years ago.

Plus, I’ve got China’s $50 billion trade deals breathing down my neck, and I need the GCC tethered to my orbit. I can't have any of them dictating terms. I need a head start in this new multipolar game.

So, I’d keep the threat of Palestinian extinction on the table, a grim little bargaining chip.

Israel’s my liability now, but I will milk it dry while it safeguards my negotiations with the GCC. Gaza’s $80 billion ruin is just Israel’s lifeblood hemorrhaging. Their economy is evaporating in the rubble, while my MIC cashes out $100 billion in arms sales.

Meanwhile, I’d let my FIC shift $50-$100 billion to the GCC winners, eyeing their $2 trillion jackpot. I’d outbid China and Russia, but only by keeping the pressure on the GCC through those Palestinian lives, because let’s be real, I have only Israel to lose in doing this and everything else to gain.

Yeah, they were an ally sure. It was nice while the profits lasted, but now I need to cut this colony loose. They weren't supposed to be there anyway.

It’s my perfect defection play.

I maximize my payoff while they eat the cost.

So I have to short Israel to the bone, extracting every last drop of value, $100 billion in MIC profits, $50 billion in GCC deals, before cutting the cord.

Business 101: when an asset turns toxic, you don’t just dump it; you strip it bare, increment by bloody increment. There's value to be drawn from every inch along the fall.

Israel is my toxic collateralized debt obligation.

So I have to make sure that when I finally discard Israel, it’ll be a hollowed-out shell, worthless trash for the GCC to pick over.

I’d hand it to them.

Palestinian lives are worthless to me. So I have to make sure Israel becomes just as worthless before I exchange it over.

The UAE and Saudi can carve up the scraps, in exchange for that $40 billion Gaza rebuild.

Then I’d reap the real prize: a fat slice of the GCC’s $500 billion oil wealth and $2 trillion prosperity.

That’s a steal, considering all they want is a Palestinian state. Which we stole from the outset.

Haha. Cheap ask to be fair.

Sure, I’ll deliver what the GCC want. But on my terms, at a glacial pace.

Every delay squeezes out more leverage, more profit.

The one thing that's an absolute certainty, is that there’s no scenario where I don’t spin Israel’s collapse as my triumph.

And Netanyahu?

He’s just the perfect symbol for this bloody chapter’s end. I’d pin this godforsaken, brutal, genocidal mess squarely on his crumbling cabinet. As they organically disintegrate, ripping each other apart in a frenzy of blame,

I’d step in, pushing a new chapter of peace and prosperity.

I’d orchestrate it so I look like an absolute saint, the benevolent hand guiding the region to salvation while the cabinets corpse swings in the wind.

Once the smoke clears, I am going to pivot hard. My MIC will feast on Europe’s paranoia, new markets, new wars, while my FIC chases the Middle East’s reconstruction goldmine, hotels, ports, refineries.

I’d wrap it up with a $350 billion return on investment.

My image?

Spotless.

I’d be the saint who “stabilized” the region, the magnanimous victor who tamed the chaos.

Israel?

They’d be the villain everyone already despises, a discarded shell I timed to perfection.

This is my way out.

Because I can see a new game that's forming.

And I have to be part of the group that's rewriting the rules while I burn the old board behind me.

[Evan @EvanWritesOnX]

Predicted over a year ago. I was called delusional for this post.

[Evan @EvanWritesOnX]

Remember that every foreign direct investment is predatory until proven otherwise.

All cross-border capital is predatory until the structure proves otherwise.

Foreign direct investment is not aid and it is not friendship. It is capital seeking return, and the surest returns come not from passive yield but from control.

Equity stakes with board seats, golden shares carrying veto power, debt with conditionality, infrastructure concessions that hand over the operation of ports, grids, and telecoms for decades.

The polite vocabulary of “partnership” and “development” sits downstream of that control logic; it does not constrain it.

Money that crosses a border wants leverage over the place it lands.

What determines whether that leverage hardens into subjugation or settles into something tolerable is not the donor’s character.

It is the receivers bargaining position.

A state dependent on a single source of capital has lost the negotiation before it opens.

The lone financier dictates the interest rate, writes the arbitration clause into its own courts, attaches the policy conditions, and selects which strategic assets are pledged as collateral.

Every term drifts toward the creditor, because the host has nowhere else to go.

This is no different to an individual looking for a job with only one company offering a position.

You will take what’s given.

This is the ordinary condition of the captured economy: one patron, one set of demands, and a slow transfer of sovereignty packaged as investment.

Optionality is the only variable that breaks the pattern. The moment a host can credibly take the same project to a rival;

Gulf capital against Chinese capital against Japanese, Western, or Indian capital,

the dynamic inverts.

Each donor now competes against the others’ best offer rather than against the host’s desperation.

Rates fall. IP transfer gets added to sweeten the terms. Equity caps appear.

Arbitration moves to neutral venues.

The host extracts concessions it could never have won alone, and it wins them without spending anything, because the alternative does the work.

The credible threat to walk is worth more than the walking.

Optionality converts a zero-sum extraction into a positive-sum auction.

When the receiving country holds genuine alternatives, the donors are forced to bid against one another, and the surplus that competition generates accrues to the host rather than the financier.

Diversification of relationships is therefore directly proportional to the neutralization of predation.

Applied to individuals as much as states.

Each additional credible partner is another bidder in the room.

It’s another reason for every existing partner to improve its terms or lose the mandate.

A country wired into five capital sources is not five times as entangled; it is five times as expensive to capture.

The states that have best resisted financial vassalization are the hedgers, not the loyalists.

Gulf sovereigns moving between Washington, Beijing, and New Delhi without committing to any one.

India’s strategic autonomy.

Vietnam’s deliberate balancing.

The African and Latin American governments that learned to play the IMF against Chinese policy banks.

The states that were captured were the ones with a single patron and no exit ramp.

Predation is the default.

Optionality is the discount.

The more doors you build as a state or even at an individual level,

the more you coerce every guest to behave better.

[Evan @EvanWritesOnX]

Trump called Obama's $1.7b to Iran treason.

He is now, as part of the peace deal, giving $300b to the same country.

Everyone's calling it hypocrisy.

Neither number was ever a gift to Iran.

Not Obama's, not Trump's.

And the taxpayer everyone's outraged on behalf of was never getting a cent either way.

I'm going to explain how this works.

Obama's $1.7b was Iran's own money.

$400 million Iran paid the US in the 1970s for weapons it ordered and never received after the revolution, plus interest the US sat on for almost 40 years.

A tribunal was about to rule against the US, so they settled first. It got shipped as physical cash for one reason: the US had locked Iran out of the dollar banking system so completely that Iran couldn't receive a wire transfer of its own funds.

The "pallets of cash" everyone remembers wasn't proof of a gift. It was proof of how totally the US controls the world's money.

Now the $300 billion.

Read past the number.

It's an "investment fund."

A "reconstruction program."

The administration is reportedly trying to get the Gulf states to fund it. And Trump's own red line is that he won't sign anything that looks like cash going to Iran.

Put those three facts together. A fund. Gulf money. No cash to Iran.

Iran does not receive the money. A fund does.

And a fund doesn't write a government a cheque.

It issues contracts.

Iran's grid, refineries, ports, telecoms and housing got hit in the war.

Somebody rebuilds all of it, and it won't be Iranian firms.

It'll be the Wall St engineering and construction companies that show up after every war, the same names that rebuilt Iraq.

The energy majors that put the oil and gas infrastructure back.

The tech and telecom firms that rewire the country.

The $300 billion is the budget. The contracts are the product.

The profit at every stage is the point.

Whether the money is US taxpayer or Gulf or both only changes whose name is on the deposit.

It doesn't change who collects.

The same handful of corporations collect either way.

So why does Iran sign a deal that hands its own rebuild to foreign firms, after spending 45 years refusing exactly this?

Because it won't call it that. The framing coming out of Tehran tells you everything: they're calling it compensation.

Reparations for the damage.

Iran can't sell "we opened our economy to the people who bombed us." Iran can sell "we forced the aggressor to pay $300 billion for what they did to us."

Same money. Same contracts. Same foreign firms walking in.

Opposite story.

That's how a losing party accepts terms it could never accept in the open. Not by changing the terms. By changing the wrapper. Iran gets the parades. The contracts stay foreign.

Now put the ‘war’ and the fund together.

The war was the arms industry collecting the first invoice. The reconstruction fund is the rest of the corporate world collecting the second.

First they bill you to break it, then they bill you to rebuild it. One transaction, two invoices.

America comes out of this looking weak. Paying the enemy you just bombed is not a strong look. But the corporations running the deal don't care whose flag is on the fund.

And while everyone fights about whether taxpayer money is being "gifted" to Iran, a handful of companies are quietly positioning to get very rich off the $300 billion.

The taxpayer pays for the bombs, pays again for the rebuild, and sees none of it.

If you want to actually understand a deal like this, stop watching the politicians and start looking at the private sector.

Don't ask who's the hypocrite. Ask who gets the contracts. Watch the reconstruction mandates when they're awarded.

If you’re concerned about your tax money, don’t complain about your warped president.

Watch the geopolitics,

then collect it back on Wall St.