The conflict between the United States, Israel, and Iran has entered its 18th day. This morning, it was reported that Ali Larijani and his son from Iran were killed in the attack. At least from this round of conflict, Israel's style in such targeted strikes does have a bit of a "tough talk" meaning: once it publicly claims to have taken down someone, it often ends up actually taking down someone. In contrast, when faced with similar news, Iran's senior management usually denies it first and then slowly confirms it, which indirectly reflects the gap between the two sides in information warfare, intelligence capabilities, and organizational efficiency. From the perspective of hard power, whether it is fighter jets, intelligence systems, or satellite reconnaissance, Iran finds it difficult to confront the United States and Israel on an equal footing. But the United States will not easily engage in a full-scale ground war with Iran. The reason is not complicated: ground warfare means long-term consumption, soldier casualties, and a rise in domestic anti war sentiment, and in the face of election pressure, this cost is not cost-effective for the US government. The real card of deterrence in Iran's hands is still the Strait of Hormuz. On the one hand, it can use the "blockade of the strait" as a strategic threat. On the other hand, it is also sending a signal that as long as its civilian and oil facilities continue to be hit, it cannot rule out the possibility of further spillover of the war to the energy facilities of neighboring Gulf countries. Its essence is not to force absolute military power against the United States and Israel, but to maximize the cost of war and transmit regional risks to the global energy market. For crude oil producing countries like the United States and Russia, rising oil prices may not necessarily be entirely a bad thing to some extent. But from a macro perspective, the rise in crude oil prices will also push up inflation, ultimately directly reflecting on public opinion and votes. Crude oil is a unique asset: it can both absorb the liquidity of assets such as gold and silver in the market, and has a strong self destructive nature. The higher the price, the more obvious the suppression on the global economy. When consumption cools down and the economy weakens, oil prices will fall again due to a drop in demand. Trump clearly saw this, so he tried to rally allies to escort Hormuz, and even did not rule out the possibility of using the opportunity to strengthen control over this sea route. But the problem is that allies such as Japan, South Korea, and NATO countries are not willing to easily end up. Allies usually hope to enjoy the security protection provided by the United States, but when high-risk situations arise, they are unwilling to bear the corresponding costs, which naturally makes Trump angry. The core of NATO ultimately lies in the United States. In other words, the United States is almost the pivot of NATO's operation. After the end of the Cold War, the international landscape was long summarized as "one superpower and many strong powers", among which the "superpower" was the United States. The two most important pillars for the United States to maintain its hegemony are the dollar system and military alliances and overseas base networks. The former allows it to have a global impact economically, while the latter enables it to achieve long arm projection militarily. So, the current crude oil futures prices may not fully reflect the real spot market and future situation. The war may also end soon or evolve into a protracted consumption war. But one thing is relatively clear: as long as oil prices continue to rise and go to extremes, the global economy is unlikely to look good. The people who really have to wait until the AI foam bursts and finally stay on the market to take orders are probably the ones who will pay for this round of geopolitical conflicts and resonance of the asset foam. Trump's typical problem is that he hopes allies will continue to rely on the security system provided by the United States, but is unwilling to bear the costs associated with traditional hegemony. At the same time, he demands that allies demonstrate absolute obedience and practical investment at critical moments. To put it simply, it means wanting, wanting, wanting. As for the market level, more and more people no longer view Trump as a stable policy maker, but as a political variable that can repeatedly create volatility and "draw lines" for the market. In a sense, he himself has become a part of the transaction logic. International relations sometimes resemble interpersonal relationships. Whether friends can last long depends not on unilateral demands, but on basic mutual understanding and reciprocity. The same applies between countries. You treat me well, and I treat you well, that's how this relationship can last. If one party always feels weak and justified, and only wants to take advantage of aid and support, but remains silent at critical moments, then this relationship is destined to be unstable. Helping others is possible, but it also depends on the target audience. What is truly worth helping is a country that knows how to be grateful, knows how to reciprocate, and can stand up and express its attitude at critical moments, even if it's just taking a stance during voting? If a country takes your support for granted, but chooses to remain silent on international issues and even vacillates on key interests, then what it wants is not cooperation, but only unilateral demands. The core of Trump's campaign has always been 'America First'. While imposing tariffs on allies, it indirectly collects protection fees. At critical moments, withdraw anti missile systems and prioritize strategic resources towards the Middle East. On the other hand, they also demand that the protected country immediately send troops, provide funds, and show attitude when needed. This logic itself carries strong contradictions and is destined to constantly erode the trust of the alliance system. So, how Hormuz ended up is definitely worth watching. It is not only related to whether the situation in the Middle East will further spiral out of control, but also to global oil prices, inflation expectations, capital markets, and even how this AI narrative will ultimately be repriced by reality. It can be foreseen that once caught in a protracted war, the volatility of global assets will significantly increase in the future, and even a slight mistake will lead to poverty. In trading, only rational response, relying on logic, insight, and patience can survive, and the survivors are king.