"With bias a near constant fixture in what passes today for journalism, we owe it to ourselves to both be aware of any outlet’s narrative lens and to remain focused on the facts without regard to the narrative lens." - Great Point!
People truly do not realize the degree to which bias and propaganda infect all media.
Everyone is siloed based on who they read/listen to/follow. And there's just not a lot of cross-pollination between the groups and no one is comparing notes to see who got an event right or not.
Although this is not the first war to be fought over economic issues (to a degree, they all are); this one seems to be the one that has been thought through the best from an economic perspective.
It encompasses most of the geopolitical threats to the US; avoids direct confrontation with the 2 nations who can be the most costly in terms of blood and materials, China and Russia, and yields real threat reduction worldwide.
Interesting you pick sulfuric acid. From long association with the environmental and chemical industry I can state that it is one product to measure the degree of industrial production by.
When it comes to a constantly shifting story such as the war with Iran, I don't "pick" topics so much as I constantly filter what's being reported looking for aspects to investigate further.
I'm always looking for items to shed light on the economic dimensions of every event, so when I saw the reporting on sulfur and sulfuric acid, I decided that was the next rabbit hole to go down.
If President Trump does achieve a substantive peace deal with Iran and denuclearizes the regime, quite a few resource scarcity predictions are going to be made obsolete. It will be interesting to see what evolves from here!
This is what happens when the narrative takes priority over the facts.
This article is going to be an interesting exemplar of how facts can shift suddenly. Just as this article was scheduled to publish Iran decided to declare the Strait of Hormuz fully open.
How long the current supply dislocations prevail is going to be the question going forward.
If I've written this article half as well as I hope I have, it will age well despite the shift in the facts on the ground.
Of all the commentary I read on Substack surrounding this war, yours seems to be the best balanced and factual, with conclusions drawn based on evidence, not speculation, neither white, nor blackpilled.
Interesting lessons in the Law of Unintended Consequences, and the impossibility of predicting war outcomes. Trump’s team has maybe thought through most of the likely outcomes of their actions, and the IRGC has repeatedly shown that they haven’t.
Take lithium, for example. If less lithium is mined, and at a higher cost, that could be the final nail in the coffin of the electric vehicle craze. And if Chile cannot mine enough copper to fund their government, will there be regime change there? My bet is that Trump has thought things out to their logical consequences, more so than his adversaries.
I am reassured that we will come out of this war in better shape than most others. Thank you, Peter, for writing about angles that few other sources are covering.
President Trump's national security and warfighting team has unquestionably thought through how the war with Iran needs to go in far greater detail than any media is prepared to acknowledge.
As Araghchi's statement this morning demonstrates, Trump's strategy is at present increasingly likely to be a winning one.
If Trump succeeds in denuclearizing Iran, world geopolitics will be reshaped for a generation at least.
Isn't China the biggest supplier of Sulphur in the world?
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1031181/sulfur-production-globally-by-country/#:~:text=In%202025%2C%20China%20produced%20around,chemical%20elements%20found%20in%20nature.
Like so many of China's exports, their sulfur production hinges on oil imports, and that just got a lot more expensive.
Listen to Glenn Becks analysis of it on his podcasts a couple days ago. If correct it’s very interesting
"With bias a near constant fixture in what passes today for journalism, we owe it to ourselves to both be aware of any outlet’s narrative lens and to remain focused on the facts without regard to the narrative lens." - Great Point!
People truly do not realize the degree to which bias and propaganda infect all media.
Everyone is siloed based on who they read/listen to/follow. And there's just not a lot of cross-pollination between the groups and no one is comparing notes to see who got an event right or not.
Although this is not the first war to be fought over economic issues (to a degree, they all are); this one seems to be the one that has been thought through the best from an economic perspective.
It encompasses most of the geopolitical threats to the US; avoids direct confrontation with the 2 nations who can be the most costly in terms of blood and materials, China and Russia, and yields real threat reduction worldwide.
Interesting you pick sulfuric acid. From long association with the environmental and chemical industry I can state that it is one product to measure the degree of industrial production by.
When it comes to a constantly shifting story such as the war with Iran, I don't "pick" topics so much as I constantly filter what's being reported looking for aspects to investigate further.
I'm always looking for items to shed light on the economic dimensions of every event, so when I saw the reporting on sulfur and sulfuric acid, I decided that was the next rabbit hole to go down.
If President Trump does achieve a substantive peace deal with Iran and denuclearizes the regime, quite a few resource scarcity predictions are going to be made obsolete. It will be interesting to see what evolves from here!
New media: Never let the facts get in the way of a story that can be used to bludgeon Trump. No news is to be good news, full stop.
This is what happens when the narrative takes priority over the facts.
This article is going to be an interesting exemplar of how facts can shift suddenly. Just as this article was scheduled to publish Iran decided to declare the Strait of Hormuz fully open.
How long the current supply dislocations prevail is going to be the question going forward.
If I've written this article half as well as I hope I have, it will age well despite the shift in the facts on the ground.
U.S. up, China down. Trump is going to have a fine summit with Xi.
Of all the commentary I read on Substack surrounding this war, yours seems to be the best balanced and factual, with conclusions drawn based on evidence, not speculation, neither white, nor blackpilled.
Thank you for saying that.
When that is how my work is received I can honestly say "Mission Accomplished" (and with not a trace of irony!).
Interesting lessons in the Law of Unintended Consequences, and the impossibility of predicting war outcomes. Trump’s team has maybe thought through most of the likely outcomes of their actions, and the IRGC has repeatedly shown that they haven’t.
Take lithium, for example. If less lithium is mined, and at a higher cost, that could be the final nail in the coffin of the electric vehicle craze. And if Chile cannot mine enough copper to fund their government, will there be regime change there? My bet is that Trump has thought things out to their logical consequences, more so than his adversaries.
I am reassured that we will come out of this war in better shape than most others. Thank you, Peter, for writing about angles that few other sources are covering.
President Trump's national security and warfighting team has unquestionably thought through how the war with Iran needs to go in far greater detail than any media is prepared to acknowledge.
As Araghchi's statement this morning demonstrates, Trump's strategy is at present increasingly likely to be a winning one.
If Trump succeeds in denuclearizing Iran, world geopolitics will be reshaped for a generation at least.