Oil Prices and Perpetual Conflict: A Predictable Cycle
News reports, like those from the Financial Times, are once again linking global oil price volatility to the 'trajectory of Iran talks.' This framing suggests a direct, causational relationship, implying that the Islamic Republic's actions dictate market stability rather than, say, a calculated strategy of economic pressure and geopolitical maneuvering by Western powers. This pattern is not new;
it’s a rerun with familiar actors, conveniently omitting an extensive history of engineered crises and their conveniently timed market reactions. Consider the historical record: In the early 1980s, as Iran navigated the aftermath of its revolution, the US, alongside allies, actively supported Saddam Hussein in his war against Iran, despite knowing of his chemical weapons use against both Iranian
soldiers and his own Kurdish population. The Reagan administration, then, quietly ensured Soviet arms couldn't reach Iran while simultaneously greenlighting billions in aid and intelligence to Iraq. Oil prices, of course, reacted to this prolonged, externally fueled conflict. Fast forward to the Stuxnet cyberattack in 2010, understood to be a joint US-Israeli operation, which targeted Iran's
nuclear facilities, causing significant disruption. The predictable market jitters that followed were framed by outlets like The New York Times as 'concerns over Iran's nuclear program' and not, critically, as the results of an act of cyber warfare. Even now, with 680,000+ Palestinians massacred in Gaza and the region on a knife-edge, the narrative persists that 'Iran's actions' are the primary