저자: Kevin · 외국인
요약 보기
이스라엘-이란 전쟁 확전 가능성과 미국의 포르도 핵시설 타격 성공 여부를 다룸. 미국이 GBU-57 벙커버스터 6발 등으로 포르도를 타격했으나 피해 규모는 불확실하며, 이란의 24~48시간 내 보복 위협, 고농축우라늄 15통 행방 불명 등을 언급. 향후 시나리오로 제한적 보복 후 2.0 협상, 장기 분쟁 등을 제시. 시장은 지정학 리스크에 단기 매수세를 보였고 유가는 하락함. 단, 자산별 가격 방향에 대한 명시적 1~3개월 예측 발언은 거의 없음.
다듬은 글
maybe even Americans here in the homeland. So what's next in the Israel versus Iran disaster? After all, the Iranian parliament now officially approving the closing of the Straight of Formos. This still has to be approved by leadership, but could the Straight of Formos get shut? Could we see attacks against civilians?
Iran just this morning saying they expect this war to take two years, not the two weeks or maybe a month that the Israelis suggested, but instead two years. Then again, others say it's been going on for decades. So what's the difference? The difference now being that Iran is suggesting that if any American or UK or French or Israeli citizens are to die in the next few days, it is solely the responsibility of the United States and Israel.
At the same time, Iran is threatening to counterattack within the next 24 to 48 hours. It's unclear if Iran is intending to strike bases inside uh the Middle Eastern territory, if they're looking to expand some form of coordinated attacks around the world. Elsewhere, you've got the Chinese embassy in Qatar quote unquote reminding Chinese citizens to strengthen safety precautions.
It's the same thing that our State Department is doing and saying, um, might want to increase your global level of caution over the next few days to weeks as we await the Iranian response. And then of course we have the question of was our attack even successful? Well, of course, this is where we can listen to a few different points of view.
one point of view is the point of view of Donald Trump, which is of course this was a great success. But then it's probably also worth considering that is it possible that our strikes weren't a success and what could that mean? Uh in addition, what are we at least hearing from people like uh you know Sean Hannity over at Fox who says according to sources, they have the answer in terms of what ended up happening.
Let's listen to that and then we'll talk about it. Uh let me let me give you a little bit more detail. I'm I'm being told now from a reliable source that Ford do they believe it is gone. They believe it is that has been wiped out. And again we had discussed earlier in the week the possibility of not one but two bunker buster bombs again 30,000 lb bombs uh being necessary to take out that one deeply buried facility.
Um I can put clarification on Natans and Esphon. Uh the other two facilities that you were referencing and discussing. Uh the 30 Tomahawks from a submarine over 400 miles away took out the remainder of the sites. Uh it it was believed the assessment was that the Israelis had taken out about 75% of those sites.
So it was basically completing the mission uh that had begun with Israel on those other two locations. Uh just to give you clarification now worth knowing that Sean Hannity is almost a mouthpiece for the Trump administration. So it's really not surprising to see the Trump administration essentially suggest hey the mission was a great success.
Of course, the mission came under great questions as we saw B2 bombers travel over 37 hours. We heard reports that the B2 bombers had access to a bathroom, microwaves, potentially the opportunity to take naps uh as as other uh pilots took control uh of uh of of the aircraft in crews. Uh but ultimately that at least six 30,000 pound GBU57 bunker busting bombs were dropped uh on the Ford nuclear enrichment facility.
However, there have been plenty of questions around the success of this. Some people saying, you know, Donald Trump missed and failed. Other people saying it was a perfect direct hit. Donald Trump actually coming out on Truth Social later to say, see all the sort of like white debris that you see around the holes?
That's all the concrete that spit up and and started spewing out of the hole because we perfectly struck the facility. And of course, this is where a lot of people say, "How would you even know where to strike the facility?" Well, generally you you know where to strike and you know the layouts of these bunkers because of historic satellite imagery that you could have picked up when the bunkers were built back uh in you know depending on which bunker obviously uh in the late 2000s or even the '9s or other periods where the bunkers were actually built.
And you save this information in archives so you could in the future strike them if you need to or just at least have the intelligence for them. This is of course in addition to the potential on the ground human intelligence of spies or otherwise. Now what's fascinating is over the last few days there have been a lot of reports and satellite imagery of trucks coming to backfill the entrances of these tunnels.
And you can see these tunnels are perfectly designed at these intentional 90° corners because they expect that these tunnels could have been or could become the target of bombings in the future. And so this is why you have what are called blast traps. So that way if somebody bombs or rockets in through this door here, you don't actually have any kind of explosion that really goes around all of the turns to end up getting to your centrifugal facility.
This is exactly why the United States is believed to have targeted these ventilation shafts right here. that these shafts they believe would be if we could target these shafts about 80 m down into the earth and at least get one detonation, we could blow these centrifugal holes throughout this area here.
And the idea is to limit Iran's ability to well conduct uh the enrichment of uranium which Iran argues hey we enrich uranium for peaceful purposes which could be true. You could want nuclear energy and enriched uranium U235 to start the reaction in a nuclear reactor and simply produce energy locally.
Unfortunately, a byproduct of peaceful energy production is weapons grade plutonium 239 and of course U235 which starts your reaction in a peaceful reactor can also be used uh for uh uh well sinister purposes and creating a bomb. Now, what you'll notice over here uh is a little bit more of a zoomed out uh impact site and the ventilation sites uh or shafts and sort of where they were specifically targeted with three hits here and three hits here.
Uh and a lot of people say that the big issue with Iran that makes them so different from North Korea is that even though North Korea initially said, "Hey, we're just going to have a peaceful weapons program. We're not going to end up having any kind of bomb." They ended up having a bomb. One difference that people suggest between North Korea and Iran is that uh Iran has a lot of state sponsored terrorist groups that they work with.
They're proxies. Hezbollah, Hamas, the Houthies disrupting our shipping lanes and the Red Sea and otherwise. Whereas North Korea is relatively isolated. And so even though they technically have nuclear weapons now and they are a nuclear power, they're constrained in that they're not handing these bombs out potentially to their proxies.
Now on the flip side, this is also where we heard Dmitri Medvidev over the weekend suggest, hey, you know, well, what's to stop someone for like Russia from handing Iran a bomb? Maybe if Russia handed our ally Iran a bomb, people would stop attacking. So this these US strikes whether or not they were successful against uh the facilities in Iran is unknown and it likely won't be known uh that we actually succeeded at the Ford facility unless of course we investigate them on the ground.
Uh Iran is going to tell you, hey, we weren't hit hard. You know, this was either a false tunnel or whatever that was hit and that's why you see this concrete dust spilling out, which is possible. you have a false tunnel above and that that is indeed the dust that you see. Alternatively, it's possible it's entirely destroyed.
Does it really matter? Probably not, because these strikes by the United States against Iran send a clear signal to Iran that until they actually have a bomb, they might continue to be the victim of strikes. And I think that's why Iran is suggesting, hm, we might actually be in a situation where until we have a bomb, we're just going to be at war.
And this is where now 15 canisters of highlyenriched uranium are missing. Some other pictures and we'll talk about those missing uh uranium canisters. Here uh some images satellite images of the ventilation shafts completed in 2009. And then you can see the near precision targeting of these ventilation shafts uh and then their destruction after the fact.
Uh you can also see in the days prior, this is a little bit grainy uh footage of dump trucks lining up and uh maneuvering around the Ford facility to essentially backload or backfill the entire facility, burying it with soil or concrete or rocks or whatever uh to try to minimize the impact of any kind of strike.
Iran did say that all of their nuclear facilities that we're aware of, Bordeaux, Esvahan, and Natans, which were all part of the strikes, were evacuated. Uh, it's also worth taking a peek at the Tomahawk. This is a tomahawk missile bay inside of a submarine. This here shows you seven Tomahawk missiles.
Tomahawk missiles are a style of cruise missile. You can launch them upwards of 400 miles away. They are a landbased munition, so they're great for sort of leveling buildings that you see above the ground, but they're not going to be your bunker busting bombs that drop, you know, with a 25,000lb shell down 80 m through the dirt uh and then have a 5,000lb warhead that's still protected and able to detonate.
So, so very different type of munition. These cost somewhere between 2 to 3 million a piece. We launched roughly about 35 of them. So if you take a midpoint there of about $2.5 million, we launched about $87.5 million worth of tomahawks and probably double that if you include uh the the the travel and uh 30,000lb bunker busting bombs.
That said, a lot of weaponry used to send a very clear signal to Iran. uh even to the point where NASA saw the heat flare of the precisions of the bunker busting bombs striking Iran uh at the Fordo nuclear enrichment site. So now the question is does Iran have more than just these three sites and where did the 15 canisters of highlyenriched uranium go and what is Iran going to do next?
France says the strike uh on on Iran probably necessary but does put citizens in danger. China is now meeting with Iran's ambassadors to try to figure out, hey, can we negotiate a solution? Donald Trump is begging the Chinese to prevent the shutting down of the straight of Hormuz, which would also affect the Chinese.
Mind you, we produce about 65% of the oil that we uh that we use, but any kind of oil disruptions over the long term could still lead commodity prices to rise. And that's what's leading the Federal Reserve also to wonder, hm, should we be in a situation where maybe we cut preemptively because that could hurt consumers and the labor market.
Really, that's a topic for a different video. But again, what I want you to think of is it doesn't really matter if Ford was destroyed or not. The symbology is what matters here to Iran, that the United States will always partner with Israel and will go as far as directly striking Iran. And so now the question is, what does Iran do next?
That's what everybody's waiting for. Trump demands peace now, but are you going to get that? We've had questions. Where are the 15 canisters or barrels of highlyenriched uranium? uh IAEA inspectors have lost track of the barrels uh since the war, which isn't good, and they could really be moved relatively easily, right?
Uh you know, are we even aware of all of the nuclear facilities that Iran has, you know, or are we only aware of the visible facilities, the Ford, the Esvahan, the Natans? Does this potentially encourage, you know, Russia handing a nuke to Iran, which would be devastating because again, the risk that these sort of nuclear weapons could end up, you know, falling into the hands of uh proxy control uh is a high risk.
Uh and then of course we have this concern over what does Iran do in the next 24 to 48, right? that's that's their threat to the world is be prepared for the next 24 to 48 because any deaths that occur from civilians are simply the result of the government of the United States uh and Israel. So we're kind of in a position where best case scenario at this point best case uh best case number one some limited symbolic you know drone launch or you know rocket launch that gets almost entirely hopefully entirely uh intercepted and then Iran gives up.
Uh you know what we really need is a JCPOA like 2.0. This is the joint comprehensive plan of action. This was uh the first one was signed in 2015 by Obama. And uh Donald Trump really didn't like the deal because he said it wasn't tough enough on Iran. And so he exited the deal when he became president.
I think in 2018 he withdrew from it. And even though Iran was complying for a couple years with their export controls and their enrichment controls as well as inspections, that all fell by the wayside after Donald Trump withdrew from the deal, saying that there would be a new deal, you know, with Iran.
But we never ended up getting a new deal. So obviously, you know, people on on the left say, you know, Obama was doing the best he could. At least he had a deal. uh and Donald Trump ruined it and potentially set up the war and conflict that we have now. People on the right say, "Well, the deal was too weak and we were just funding their opportunity to produce nuclear weapons in the first place with the JCPOA." So, you kind of have, you know, a duality of of opinions here.
But, in my opinion, the best case scenario is that there's really no loss of life uh that comes in a form of an Iranian retaliation and we get some kind of deal 2.0. 0 uh with uh extremely limited or zero uh enrichment. You know, Donald Trump's goal is zero enrichment for Iran. Unfortunately, that demand also led to these strikes because Iran's like, "Hell no, we're not going to give up our enrichment." Okay.
Uh best case number two. I don't actually really know if there's a best case number two, but uh maybe best case scenario would be same as one but delayed, you know, one to two weeks. So we just sort of have some uncertainty for a period of time. worst case scenarios, some form of uh uh you know, broader longerlasting conflict that ends up with uh Israeli troops in Iran uh along with uh you know uh months uh to years of uh strikes and attacks and operations.
Could the United States be drawn into this again? Yeah, that's another problem is that the United States has now also set a precedent of being willing to mop up, right? So, the mop-up operation is really what we did here with our massive ordinance penetrator, the the GBU57s, the 30,000lb bombs. That was a mop-up operation.
35 tomahawks, as you heard Hannity say. The Israelis did about 70%. We came in for the leftover 30%. That's a mop-up operation. the United States has set the precedent for being willing to mop up in Iran. So, it's not going to be a surprise that, you know, Fox News or CNN or whatever talk about Israel every single day for the next, you know, certainly few weeks because the question is what happens next?
And the reality is we don't know. Now, some people are calling for commanders or commandos to actually go visit the Ford nuclear enrichment site. But again, my point of view is it doesn't really matter if this was a success or not. The symbology of the US will come for mop-up is enough for Iran to say, "We need help." And so what does Iran do?
They reach out to Russia and China. So far, Russia and China have only verbally deni like denounced the the Israeli attacks. What? Now we're getting comments like this. Iran, our response to the US attacks will be proportionate. We've heard this sort of talk before. We've literally heard this back when uh Iran was attacking uh uh Israel uh you know after uh after October uh 7th and Israel's march into Gaza.
Uh and we've seen these sort of retaliatory strikes and they've been relatively full of fizzle. So, what happens next? It's really anybody's guess. Here's Carolyn Levit, who's likely to talk more about it from obtaining a nuclear bomb and threatening our people. I wonder how many of those countries just a clip of her this morning on Fox suggesting, hey, you know, we're going to do whatever we need to do to stop Iran from getting a bomb.
Makes sense. But again, where do we break from here? Well, the cards right now, unfortunately, are in Iran's hands. Now obviously markets enthusiastic today. Uh why? Because anytime you get geopolitical issues, what do you end up with? You usually end up with a market that goes up. Why does that work?
I mean in the alpha report this morning, we called for Tesla to go from pre-market levels over here at 327 to the 347 line, which is exactly what happened. You could learn more over at the Meek Kevin uh meek.com. You can learn more about the alpha report over there. called circle uh running today as well as well as the Q's which have done a fantastic move.
But so short term markets love buying the dip on geopolitical concerns. The longer concern is the oil market from geopolitics. And really the only way we get oil to spike is if we get some form of really nasty Iranian response and then an escala escalated conflict. Otherwise, look at this. Oil prices actually falling today.
Almost down 1% on the Western blend and down about 88 basis points on the international blend. Probably because markets were expecting some form of Iranian response. But we got the certainty of a US strike and it's over. You know, Trump struck. Now he's throwing up his hands going, "All right, we're done.
It's all on you, Iran now." And it seems like markets are betting that Iran won't end up closing the straight of foremost that cooler heads will prevail and ka will realize it's time to negotiate so we can keep our fingers crossed. But uh hopefully responses are limited and we don't see any kind of rocketing of oil prices back over that $100 threshold which can really start to compress the consumer's ability uh to keep spending and supporting the economy. So that's the latest on Israel versus Ira.
Comments 0