Article Title: AI in Trump's 3-D Chess Match
Article Author: Andy Kessler, WSJ
Translation: Peggy, BlockBeats
Editor's Note: In traditional geopolitics, oil has always been seen as the core resource of war and power. However, with the rising importance of artificial intelligence and semiconductor technology, new strategic variables are emerging. This article makes a striking judgment: in 21st-century competition, "silicon" is replacing oil as the key resource influencing national strength and the nature of warfare.
The article begins with recent international conflicts and energy dynamics, outlining the energy and military supply chains among Venezuela, Iran, and Russia, analyzing how oil prices, drone warfare, and the global sanctions system intertwine in real conflicts. As the narrative progresses, the author shifts focus from traditional energy to technological competition, discussing the strategic significance of advanced chips, semiconductor manufacturing, and AI computing power in today's geopolitics.
According to the author, when AI can simulate war outcomes on a large scale, future conflicts may form a new logic of deterrence: potential adversaries may choose to avoid war after foreseeing failure. Thus, the "silicon-driven AI advantage" is not only reshaping the resource landscape but may also change the fundamental rules of war and peace in the 21st century.
Here is the original text:
War and politics have never been an easy game. The current chess match resembles a nested "three-dimensional chessboard."
Energy Chessboard: Oil Still Determines the First Layer of War Logic
The regimes of Venezuela and Iran have both suffered "decapitation" strikes. This is not coincidental; both countries have long been important oil sources for China and also indirectly supply energy to countries like Cuba and North Korea through China. More subtly, if oil prices rise to $100 per barrel, it will help Russia pay for its war in Ukraine.
Meanwhile, Iran is also a significant supplier of drones to Russia (note: during the Russia-Ukraine war, Russia extensively uses the Iranian-made Shahed series kamikaze drones. Due to their low cost and large numbers, these drones are often used for continuous harassment, depleting anti-aircraft missiles, and attacking energy and other infrastructure). In this complex chess game, this amounts to a "check."
From a geopolitical perspective, an ideal victory path may include two key steps.
First, the United States supports the establishment of more pro-Western regimes in Venezuela and Iran, significantly increasing oil production and adding a portion of supply to the global market that is not subject to sanctions.
Second, the United States gains actual control over the Strait of Hormuz after the war, through which about 20% of the world's oil transportation must pass.
If these two points are achieved, is it possible for oil prices to drop back to $40 per barrel? It is not impossible. If so, Russia's war machine will be severely weakened. This would be another "check" on the board.
During a recent visit to Pearl Harbor, I was reminded of a certain historical similarity: before World War II, Japan relied on the U.S. for about 80% of its oil. In July 1941, the U.S. froze Japanese assets, effectively equivalent to an oil embargo, and history quickly slid toward war. Will history rhyme again?
Silicon Becomes the New Oil: The Strategic Resource Competition in the AI Era
However, perhaps more importantly, it is no longer just oil. A phrase I have been saying for years may be becoming a reality: silicon is replacing oil as the new strategic resource.
Washington should regulate the most advanced AI chips as strictly as it does uranium under military technology controls. Because, in a sense, AI itself is a weapon.
Unlike oil, silicon is essentially just sand. The real scarcity is not in raw materials, but in manufacturing processes and talent systems.
Equally deterrent are the rapidly spreading images: Nicolas Maduro handcuffed and blindfolded, and scenes shared on TikTok of the destruction of Ali Khamenei’s residence, as well as images of Iranian naval vessels sunk.
Currently, the U.S. and Israel have almost complete control over Iranian airspace. Like Venezuela, Iran uses the Russian-made S-300 air defense system. If I were a buyer, I might consider a refund.
AI Warfare: Technology is Changing the Nature of Conflict
In this series of actions, artificial intelligence is playing an increasingly important role.
AI is likely used to analyze the movement trajectories of personnel and weapons, thereby locking onto key targets—this is also the important technological basis for the U.S. to capture Maduro and implement strikes against Iranian leadership. AI is fundamentally an incredibly powerful pattern recognition tool. Meanwhile, the U.S. is utilizing AI for battlefield scenario simulations. In conjunction with precision strike capabilities, these technologies can significantly reduce civilian casualties. For this reason, the controversy between Anthropic and the Pentagon over the use of AI tools, in my view, appears both shortsighted and concerning.
The nature of warfare is changing. The Carter administration's attempt to rescue Iranian hostages in 1980 ultimately failed, but if it had today's technology, the outcome might have been entirely different. Maduro's capture is a real-world example. The "small ground forces + high-precision air strikes" strategy proposed by Rumsfeld may finally have found the right technological conditions. War is no longer about "deterrence and overwhelming force," but more like "precision strikes and rapid withdrawal." Ground forces are smaller but rely on high-value intelligence resources—for example, Israel once breached the Tehran traffic camera system to track the leadership's movements. This model could be termed "sneakers on the ground."
What remains to be seen is whether this "precision warfare" model can continue to be effective, and whether new regimes that align more closely with the Western system can quickly reintegrate into the global market. I personally remain somewhat optimistic. Conflicts lasting 12 days or 50 days are clearly more controllable compared to wars lasting several years.
The other pieces on the board are still in motion. Iran launches retaliatory missiles at 11 countries, which means at least 10 of these countries may become potential customers of Israel's "Iron Dome" and the U.S. "Patriot" air defense systems or need to replenish their interception missile stockpiles. If arms sales are linked to joining the Abraham Accords, the chess game will become even more complicated.
The flow of funds is also a key piece. The Wall Street Journal reported that the cryptocurrency exchange Binance had been used to funnel about $1.7 billion in funds to Iran-supported organizations, including the Houthis. Such channels should be closed. Interestingly, this figure is the same as the cash scale the Obama administration sent to Iran in 2016.
From historical experience, oil and gas are often concentrated in authoritarian regimes, or more accurately, controlled by oligarchs and elites. The Kremlin controls over half of the shares of Gazprom, and it is reported that Khamenei himself controls a financial empire worth about $95 billion. In contrast, "silicon" is more likely to thrive in a free market environment, such as in the U.S., Taiwan, South Korea, and the Netherlands, which provides critical technology for semiconductor equipment.
Free societies still possess institutional advantages. If silicon becomes the new oil and drives the AI revolution, future wars may become more "computable." AI can not only conduct battle simulations but also complete war game exercises. If Maduro or Khamenei could truly simulate the results of advanced aircraft and precision weapons against their weak air defense systems back then, they might have made different choices. Other countries will certainly take such simulations seriously. After all, ChatGPT Plus only costs $20 a month.
Will this become the "peace dividend" of the AI era?
During the Cold War, people believed that nuclear war would not happen because of "Mutually Assured Destruction" (MAD). This logic is terrifying, but it has indeed been effective so far. In the future, if AI can clearly show opponents the post-war outcomes through large-scale simulation, it will form a new logic: SAD (Strongly Assured Destruction). In this case, negotiations may become more attractive than war.
The board is in checkmate.
免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。
