Trump's Iran regime change talk escalates Mideast tensions, threatens oil market
Trump Says
President Trump has suggested a large-scale military operation against Iran and the possibility of it being prolonged, and the U.S. State Department has instructed government officials in six Middle Eastern countries to evacuate. This goes beyond mere threats and signifies that we are at the entrance to the largest U.S.-Iran military conflict since the 1979 Iranian Revolution. Crude oil prices, the safety of passage through the Strait of Hormuz, and the Middle Eastern order itself are being tested.
── Understand in 3 points ─────────
- • President Trump has suggested that a "large-scale attack" against Iran will occur soon
- • President Trump has indicated that the attack "may be prolonged"
- • The U.S. State Department has instructed government officials working in six Middle Eastern countries to evacuate
── NOW PATTERN ─────────
The "spiral of conflict" between the U.S. and Iran has entered an uncontrollable escalation due to a chain of retaliations, and the Trump administration's "overextension of power" and Iran's "chain of contagion" through its proxy strategy are creating risks that could engulf the entire Middle East.
── Probability and Response ──────
🟡 Base 50% — Additional deployment of B-2 bombers to Diego Garcia or Qatar, transition to a three-carrier strike group posture, signs of neutralizing Iran's air defense system via cyberattacks, Israeli reserve mobilization
🟢 Optimistic 20% — Sudden visits to the U.S. and Iran by the Omani Foreign Minister, increased mentions of a "deal" by President Trump, peace messages from Iranian President Pezeshkian, sharp declines in crude oil futures, easing or withdrawal of evacuation orders
🔴 Pessimistic 30% — Discovery of mines or declaration of closure in the Strait of Hormuz, reports of U.S. military casualties, Hezbollah's commencement of a full-scale attack on Israel, crude oil prices exceeding $150, simultaneous military exercises by China around Taiwan, emergency meeting of the UN Security Council
📡 THE SIGNAL — What happened
Why it matters: President Trump has suggested a large-scale military operation against Iran and the possibility of it being prolonged, and the U.S. State Department has instructed government officials in six Middle Eastern countries to evacuate. This goes beyond mere threats and signifies that we are at the entrance to the largest U.S.-Iran military conflict since the 1979 Iranian Revolution. Crude oil prices, the safety of passage through the Strait of Hormuz, and the Middle Eastern order itself are being tested.
- Military — President Trump has suggested that a "large-scale attack" against Iran will occur soon
- Military — President Trump has indicated that the attack "may be prolonged"
- Diplomacy — The U.S. State Department has instructed government officials working in six Middle Eastern countries to evacuate
- Military — Retaliatory attacks by Iran are ongoing, increasing the level of tension
- Military — The U.S. is deploying a carrier strike group (CVN) to the Middle East and enhancing the forward deployment of B-2 stealth bombers to Diego Garcia
- Energy — The Strait of Hormuz is a key chokepoint through which approximately 20% of the world's oil shipments pass (approximately 21 million barrels per day)
- Economy — Crude oil futures prices are hovering above $90 per barrel due to heightened tensions in the Middle East
- Diplomacy — The six countries subject to evacuation orders include Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, Bahrain, UAE, and Jordan
- Military — Iran possesses a multi-layered retaliatory capability combining ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, and unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs)
- Diplomacy — Allegations of Iran's nuclear development are being used to justify the Trump administration's military actions
- Geopolitics — Iran's "axis of resistance" (Hezbollah, Houthis, Iraqi militia groups) constitutes a broad retaliatory capability
- Economy — Iran's crude oil exports have been significantly restricted due to the Trump administration's "maximum pressure" policy 2.0
The conflict between the U.S. and Iran dates back to the CIA's overthrow of Prime Minister Mossadegh in 1953 (Operation Ajax). This "original sin" planted deep anti-American sentiment within Iran, leading to the 1979 Iranian Revolution and the American embassy hostage crisis. For over 45 years since then, an abnormal state has persisted where the two countries have no direct diplomatic relations.
To understand this conflict, it is necessary to understand three historical turning points.
**First turning point: Iran's rise after the 2003 Iraq War.** As a result of the Bush administration's elimination of Saddam Hussein, Iran's greatest regional rival ironically disappeared. A Shia government was established in Iraq, and Iran established a geopolitical corridor known as the "Shia Crescent" (Iran → Iraq → Syria → Lebanon). This is the prototype for the current "axis of resistance."
**Second turning point: the 2015 Iran nuclear deal (JCPOA) and its collapse.** The multilateral nuclear agreement, painstakingly concluded by the Obama administration, eased sanctions in exchange for limiting Iran's nuclear development. However, in 2018, President Trump (first term) unilaterally withdrew from this agreement and initiated the "maximum pressure" policy. Iran's crude oil exports plummeted from 2.5 million barrels per day to less than 500,000 barrels per day, severely damaging the economy. Importantly, this withdrawal gave Iran an excuse to re-accelerate its nuclear development. As of 2026, according to IAEA reports, Iran's uranium enrichment level has reached 60%, technically only a few weeks away from weapons-grade (90%).
**Third turning point: Regional escalation since 2024.** Triggered by the conflict between Israel and Hamas, Iranian-backed proxy forces have intensified their activities throughout the Middle East. Houthi attacks on commercial vessels in the Red Sea, border clashes between Hezbollah and Israel, and attacks on U.S. military bases by Iraqi militia groups. And in April 2024, Iran launched its first-ever direct missile attack against Israel. With the "direct attack" threshold crossed, the former unspoken rule—"indirect conflict through proxies"—has collapsed.
Why "now"? For President Trump (second term), Iran is an unfinished task. In his first term, while pursuing a maximum pressure policy, military actions were limited (the assassination of Commander Soleimani in 2020 was the only major operation). However, the situation is different in the second term. Iran's nuclear development has progressed further, proxy forces continue to operate although weakened, and the Trump administration has a strong ally in Israel's Netanyahu administration. The unprecedented measure of evacuating government officials from six Middle Eastern countries indicates that this is not mere rhetoric. Similar evacuation measures were taken before the 1991 Gulf War and the 2003 invasion of Iraq. The pattern is repeating.
The delta: The simultaneous occurrence of President Trump's suggestion of a "large-scale attack" and the instruction to evacuate government officials from six Middle Eastern countries has caused a phase shift from "threat" to "preparation for execution." The evacuation order amid ongoing retaliatory attacks by Iran follows the same pattern as before the 1991 Gulf War and the 2003 invasion of Iraq, suggesting preparations for a systematic military operation rather than a limited air strike.
🔍 BETWEEN THE LINES — What the media isn't saying
The core issue that the media is not addressing is the "timing" of the evacuation order for personnel from six Middle Eastern countries. Typically, evacuation orders are issued 72-96 hours before an attack—this coincides with the minimum timeframe needed for embassy logistics (document destruction, removal of encryption equipment, arrangement of private charter flights). In other words, Trump's statements are likely not just "suggestions" but indicate that the timeline for military operations has already begun. Another point the media isn't reporting is that the timing of this attack is linked to calculations of spare capacity in the oil market (OPEC's spare production capacity and the level of the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve). In other words, the attack will be executed at a time when it is determined that the "oil shock can be absorbed"—commodities markets, not geopolitics, are determining the operation's calendar.
NOW PATTERN
Spiral of Conflict × Overextension of Power × Chain of Contagion
The "spiral of conflict" between the U.S. and Iran has entered an uncontrollable escalation due to a chain of retaliations, and the Trump administration's "overextension of power" and Iran's "chain of contagion" through its proxy strategy are creating risks that could engulf the entire Middle East.
Intersection of Dynamics
The three dynamics mutually reinforce each other, forming a trap that is extremely difficult to escape.
**"Spiral of Conflict" accelerates "Overextension of Power."** With each continuing chain of retaliation, the U.S. is required to make greater military commitments. Limited airstrikes are insufficient, and ground operations risk becoming mired in a quagmire—being forced into this dichotomy is itself the trap of overextension. President Trump's mention of the "possibility of prolongation" can be read as an acknowledgment of this trap, but also as an acceptance of it—in other words, he has no intention of backing down.
**"Overextension of Power" makes "Chain of Contagion" more dangerous.** The more U.S. military resources are concentrated in the Middle East, the more deterrence decreases in other regions (Indo-Pacific, Europe). China may use this opportunity to expand its freedom of action in the Taiwan Strait. Russia may intensify its offensive in Ukraine. In other words, "contagion" in the Middle East may not be limited to the Middle East, but could trigger a "contagion" of the global geopolitical balance.
**And "Chain of Contagion" makes the "Spiral of Conflict" unstoppable.** If Iranian proxy forces launch attacks throughout the Middle East, the U.S. will have no choice but to respond to each. That will invite new retaliation, and the spiral will accelerate further. The simultaneous operation of these three dynamics is what makes the current U.S.-Iran conflict the most dangerous phase since 1979. The exit lies only in one side's complete strategic defeat, a freeze due to mutual exhaustion, or a diplomatic grand bargain among major powers including China and Russia. All of these are difficult to achieve in the short term, which is the fundamental reason for "prolongation."
📚 PATTERN HISTORY
1990-1991: Gulf War (Iraqi invasion of Kuwait → Multinational force's liberation operation)
Evacuation order before large-scale military operation in the Middle East → Limited war → Unexpected long-term involvement
Structural similarities with this time: What was supposed to be a "short, decisive battle" led to 12 years of no-fly zone monitoring, maintaining sanctions, and the 2003 invasion of Iraq. The "end" of a military operation and the "resolution" of a strategic problem are completely different things.
2003-2011: Iraq War ("Shock and Awe" operation → 8 years of occupation and counterinsurgency warfare)
Suggestion of a large-scale attack → Short-term victory → Long-term quagmire → Withdrawal → Power vacuum
Structural similarities with this time: The U.S. military captured Baghdad in just three weeks, but over the next eight years, more than 4,500 U.S. soldiers died. Overthrowing a regular army is easy, but subsequent security maintenance and national reconstruction are orders of magnitude more difficult. In an attack on Iran, "destroying nuclear facilities" may be possible, but who will be responsible for rebuilding the Middle Eastern order after that?
2019-2020: Assassination of Commander Soleimani and Iran's retaliatory missile attack
Limited preemptive strike → Retaliation → Escalation crisis → Last-minute restraint
Structural similarities with this time: When the U.S. assassinated Iran's Revolutionary Guard Commander Soleimani in January 2020, Iran fired missiles at U.S. military bases in Iraq but intentionally adjusted the impact points to avoid casualties. Both sides managed the crisis with an implicit understanding of "maintaining face while avoiding escalation." The difference this time is that the implicit understanding has already collapsed.
2024: Iran's direct missile and drone attack on Israel (first in history)
Phase shift from proxy war to direct confrontation
Structural similarities with this time: The unspoken rule of "indirect conflict through proxies" that had been maintained for over 40 years was destroyed. Once a threshold is broken, it cannot be restored. This has significantly lowered the political and military hurdles for the U.S. to launch a direct attack on Iran. The "large-scale attack" suggestion this time is an extension of this threshold collapse.
Patterns Shown by History
The pattern shown by the past four cases is clear. **U.S. large-scale military operations in the Middle East almost without exception "take longer than expected."** The Gulf War ended with a "100-hour ground war" but created 12 years of subsequent involvement. The Iraq War, which was supposed to take "a few months," became an 8-year occupation. The assassination of Soleimani succeeded in managing the crisis, but the fundamental conflict was not resolved. The 2024 Iranian direct attack destroyed the implicit rules of proxy warfare.
There are three lessons to be drawn from this. First, a "large-scale attack" is feasible, but "solving problems with a large-scale attack" has not been historically proven. Second, the U.S. overwhelmingly wins in battles between regular armies, but its advantage is significantly reduced in asymmetric warfare. Third, military operations in the Middle East always create unexpected spillover effects (oil prices, refugees, terrorism). The fact that President Trump is mentioning the "possibility of prolongation" suggests that he (at least partially) recognizes these historical lessons, but the fact that he is still suggesting an attack means that he has determined that "it is worth doing even if it takes a long time." The validity of that judgment depends on the setting of the attack's objectives and the presence or absence of an exit strategy.
🔮 WHAT'S NEXT
**A limited but large-scale air campaign (lasting several days to weeks) is carried out, targeting Iran's nuclear facilities, missile bases, and military infrastructure.** No ground troops are deployed, with precision strikes primarily using B-2 stealth bombers, F-35s, and cruise missiles (Tomahawks). Iran responds with broad retaliation through its "axis of resistance" (Hezbollah attacks on Israel, Houthi blockade of the Red Sea, Iraqi militia attacks on U.S. military bases), but does not escalate into a full-scale war. Crude oil prices temporarily surge to $120-140 per barrel, but settle around $100 within a few months due to the release of the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve and increased production by Saudi Arabia. Iran's nuclear facilities are significantly set back, but complete destruction is difficult (due to underground facilities). Months later, an informal ceasefire is established through behind-the-scenes diplomatic channels (via Oman, etc.), transitioning to a "frozen conflict." However, sporadic attacks by proxy forces continue for years. Financial markets see the VIX surge to 40-50 before normalizing in 3 months. Japan's energy costs inevitably rise, further intensifying downward pressure on the yen. In the cryptocurrency market, Bitcoin may temporarily rise as "digital gold."
Implications for Investment/Action: Additional deployment of B-2 bombers to Diego Garcia or Qatar, transition to a three-carrier strike group posture, signs of neutralizing Iran's air defense system via cyberattacks, Israeli reserve mobilization
**The "large-scale attack" suggestion is the ultimate bluff, part of Trump's "madman theory" negotiation tactic.** The evacuation order is a performance to maximize negotiating pressure. Behind the scenes, secret diplomacy is underway with Oman or Qatar mediating, and a "mini-deal" is reached where Iran accepts a gradual easing of sanctions in exchange for freezing nuclear development (setting an upper limit on uranium enrichment). In this scenario, President Trump is praised domestically and internationally as "the president who stopped Iran's nuclear program while avoiding war." Crude oil prices fall to the $80s, reflecting easing tensions, and financial markets turn risk-on. However, this deal is inherently unstable and carries a high risk of collapsing after Trump leaves office (a repeat of the JCPOA). The condition for this scenario to materialize is that moderates within Iran (around President Pezeshkian) persuade Khamenei, and the Supreme Leader's leadership shares the rational judgment that "a deal is necessary for the survival of the regime." However, hardliners within Iran (the Revolutionary Guard) strongly oppose the deal, and this internal adjustment is not easy.
Implications for Investment/Action: Sudden visits to the U.S. and Iran by the Omani Foreign Minister, increased mentions of a "deal" by President Trump, peace messages from Iranian President Pezeshkian, sharp declines in crude oil futures, easing or withdrawal of evacuation orders
**What was intended as a limited airstrike escalates into a full-scale war, and the entire Middle East goes up in flames.** The trigger is Iran's retaliation against the U.S. airstrike being more effective than expected, resulting in U.S. military casualties. U.S. public opinion demands "retaliation for retaliation," and President Trump expands the operation. Iran virtually blockades the Strait of Hormuz by laying mines and deploying anti-ship missiles. Hezbollah fires thousands of rockets into northern Israel, and the Houthis target all commercial vessels in the Red Sea.
