Whenever a new battlefield opens in the Middle East, public discourse in the West first produces a moral backdrop. We hear about democracy, women’s rights, the nuclear threat, regional stability, the security of allies. The markets then perform their brief optimistic little play, as if every ceasefire were also the beginning of peace. But beneath that surface, a much older and much cruder logic is often at work. Alex Krainer, a former hedge fund manager, has been warning about precisely this in his analyses: the real motive is not the veil, nor uranium, nor humanitarian rhetoric, but the seizure of "collateral" - real wealth that can prolong the life of a system collapsing from within.
What is this really about? Krainer reminds us that Iran is among the richest countries in the world in terms of natural resources, and cites estimates of around 35 trillion dollars in total natural wealth. The exact figure can be debated, but the point is not the precise number. The point is that Iran possesses what the indebted, financialized West increasingly lacks: energy, minerals, geography, strategic depth and the political will not to let Western banks and multinational corporations dispose of that wealth. In that sense, Iran is not merely a state to be disciplined. Iran is collateral to be seized.
Here we arrive at an uncomfortable truth about the Western model itself. In recent decades it has rested less and less on production, industry and the real economy, and more and more on debt, monetary expansion, financial derivatives and the constant manufacture of liquidity without material backing. Money can be printed, credit can be expanded, balance sheets can be beautified, but no central bank can create oil, gas, copper, wheat or a new industrial base out of nothing. When such a system loses contact with real production, sooner or later it begins to search for an external anchor. In other words, what it cannot produce, it will try to take.
That is why it is useful to view war propaganda as part of a historical sequence. Yesterday the problem was Saddam Hussein, then Gaddafi, then Assad, an entire series of "autocrats" who supposedly had to be removed for some higher good. The result is almost always the same: a shattered state, destroyed infrastructure, social fragmentation, open space for foreign interests and an endless humanitarian catastrophe. Democracy appears only in the press releases. In reality come chaos, the privatization of resources, military presence and debt dependence. Iran is the next great target in this pattern precisely because it has not yet been broken and has not yet been opened to plunder.
But as we know, and as we can now clearly see, Iran is neither Iraq in 2003 nor Libya in 2011. It is a large civilizational state with deep political memory, a strong security apparatus, serious missile capabilities and a decisive position at the junction of the Middle East, the Caucasus, Central Asia and the Indian Ocean. Whoever controls Iran gains not only access to energy resources. They gain the ability to influence the Persian Gulf, the Strait of Hormuz, the Caspian space and the main trade routes linking Asia with the Eurasian landmass. That is why the story of "regime change" is only one layer. Behind it stands a far larger project: the reshaping of the geopolitical map in favor of a faltering imperial center.
This is exactly where Krainer’s ideas become especially interesting. He speaks of seizing collateral, but this is not merely a metaphor borrowed from banking language. In the contemporary world, collateral does not mean only oil and gas fields, but also ports, railway corridors, logistics hubs, transport arteries, monetary flows and trade routes. Iran is one of the key nodes of a future Eurasia: Russian, Indian and Chinese interests intersect through it, as do projects that could bypass Western maritime and financial control. If Iran cannot be turned into an obedient ally, it can at least be broken, slowed down or turned into a zone of permanent instability. And that alone is enough to slow wider Eurasian integration.
That is why the "war against Iran" is not only a war against Iran. It is a strike against every possibility that the Eurasian space might develop its own security, energy and transport architecture outside Atlantic supervision. In that equation, Russia and China are not passive observers, but second-order targets. If Iran is destabilized, land connections are cut, trade costs rise, the North-South Corridor weakens and dependence grows on sea routes still better controlled by the West. In other words, the goal is not only to take Iranian oil. The goal is to prevent the emergence of a world in which the West no longer determines the rules for the movement of goods, capital and energy.
The whole story is made especially ironic by the fact that the rhetoric of economic nationalism has occasionally returned to American politics: the return of industry, protectionism, domestic production, infrastructure renewal, "America First". At least declaratively, this suggested that the United States might abandon the role of global policeman and turn toward its own internal renewal. But when the system feels the ground slipping from beneath its feet, it returns to the old reflex of empire. Instead of rebuilding production, it chooses geopolitical violence. Instead of social stabilization, it chooses a new external enemy. Instead of acknowledging its own limits, it chooses plunder as an extension of monetary policy.
Europe, meanwhile, looks like the most obedient victim of its own Atlantic loyalty. After the self-imposed break with cheaper Russian energy, European industry has been losing ground for years, while households feel declining living standards, inflation and growing insecurity. A new destabilization of Iran and the Persian Gulf would hit Europe harder than America. Washington still has its own resources, continental depth and geopolitical distance. Europe has expensive energy, political weakness and an elite that behaves as if self-destruction were a form of moral superiority. If the Atlantic center is trying to save itself with new spoils, Europe is already proof that it is prepared to burn its own allies first.
Nor are the Gulf monarchies free of this logic. The freezing of Russian assets showed the whole world that money parked in the Western system is not safe when politics turns. Whoever keeps reserves in dollars and in Western financial institutions is also holding their own future hostage. Hence the paradox of today’s Middle East. States that, in the long run, would have to build a balance with Iran and Asia often behave in the short term as if they still believe in the American umbrella. Not because that umbrella is reliable, but because leaving the dollar order is expensive, risky and potentially punishable.
Krainer sometimes formulates things very sharply when he says that all wars are bankers’ wars. One need not take every sentence of his literally to see what matters: behind the moral slogans lies the structural need of the Western system to seize new real assets. In this story, Iran is an enormous, still sovereign piece of the world that has refused to become someone else’s balance sheet. That is precisely why it matters so much. Not because the West wants to save Iranians, but because it wants to save itself. Or more precisely, because it wants to postpone its own reckoning with a system that no longer creates enough from within and therefore must seize from without. And when an empire begins to wage war not in order to grow, but in order to survive, its aggression becomes more dangerous - but its end also becomes more visible.
Comments