Oil Surges, What's the Next Target?

Original Title: AI in Trump's 3-D Chess Match
Original Author: Andy Kessler, WSJ
Translation: Peggy, BlockBeats

Editor's Note: In traditional geopolitics, oil has always been seen as a core resource of war and power. But as the importance of artificial intelligence and semiconductor technology continues to rise, new strategic variables are emerging. This article puts forward a bold assertion: in the competition of the 21st century, "silicon" is replacing oil as a key resource influencing national power and the form of warfare.

The article starts with recent international conflicts and the energy landscape, examines the energy and military supply chain between Venezuela, Iran, and Russia, analyzes how oil prices, drone warfare, and the global sanctions system are intertwined in real conflicts. As the narrative progresses, the author shifts focus from traditional energy to technological competition, discussing the strategic significance of advanced chips, semiconductor manufacturing, and AI computing power in today's geopolitics.

In the author's view, when AI can simulate war outcomes on a large scale, future conflicts may form a new deterrence logic: potential opponents choose to avoid war after foreseeing failure. Thus, the "silicon-driven AI advantage" is not only reshaping the resource landscape but may also alter the fundamental rules of 21st-century war and peace.

The following is the original text:

War and politics have never been an easy game. The current chess game looks more like a nested "three-dimensional chess match."

Energy Game: Oil is still determining the first-level logic of war

The regimes of Venezuela and Iran have been successively hit by "decapitation-style" attacks. This is no coincidence, as both countries have long been important sources of oil for China, while also indirectly supplying energy to countries like Cuba and North Korea through China. More subtly, if oil prices rise to $100 per barrel, it actually helps Russia pay for the cost of the war in Ukraine.

However, at the same time, Iran is also a key supplier of drones to Russia (Note: In the Russia-Ukraine war, Russia extensively used Iran-manufactured Shahed series kamikaze drones. Due to their low cost and large quantity, these drones are often used for sustained harassment, missile defense depletion, and attacks on energy and other infrastructure.) In this complex chess game, this is akin to a "check."

From a geopolitical perspective, an ideal path to victory may involve two key steps.

First, the United States supports the establishment of more pro-Western regimes in Venezuela and Iran, significantly increases oil production, and adds a portion of unsanctioned supply to the global market.

Secondly, the United States gained actual control of the Strait of Hormuz after the war, through which about 20% of global oil transportation must pass.

If these two points are achieved, is it possible for oil prices to fall to $40 per barrel? It is not impossible. Once this happens, Russia's war machine will be severely weakened. This is another "checkmate" on the chessboard.

I recently visited Pearl Harbor and once again realized a certain historical similarity: before World War II, Japan relied on the United States for about 80% of its oil supply. In July 1941, the United States froze Japanese assets, essentially equivalent to an oil embargo, and shortly after, history rapidly slid into war. Will history rhyme again?

Silicon Becomes the New Oil: Strategic Resource Competition in the AI Era

However, perhaps what is even more important now is not oil. A phrase I have been saying for years may be becoming a reality: silicon is replacing oil as the new strategic resource.

Washington should treat the most advanced AI chips as strictly as it does uranium, incorporating them into a rigorous military technology control system. Because in a sense, AI itself is a weapon.

Unlike oil, silicon is essentially just sand. The real scarcity is not the raw material, but the manufacturing process and talent ecosystem.

Equally deterrent are those rapidly spreading images: Nicolas Maduro blindfolded and handcuffed, as well as the footage circulating on TikTok of Ali Khamenei's residence being destroyed and images of Iranian naval vessels sinking.

Currently, the United States and Israel almost entirely control Iranian airspace. Iran, like Venezuela, uses Russian-made S-300 air defense systems. If I were the buyer, I would probably consider a refund.

AI Warfare: Technology is Changing the Nature of Conflict

In this series of actions, artificial intelligence is playing an increasingly important role.

AI is likely being used to analyze the movement trajectories of personnel and weapons, thus locking in on key targets — this is also the crucial technological foundation that allowed the United States to capture Maduro and carry out high-level strikes against Iran. AI is essentially an extremely powerful pattern recognition tool. At the same time, the United States is also using AI for battlefield scenario simulations. Coupled with precision strike capabilities, these technologies can significantly reduce civilian casualties. It is precisely because of this that the controversy between Anthropic and the Pentagon over the use of AI tools seems both short-sighted and unsettling to me.

The nature of warfare is changing. The Carter administration's 1980 attempt to rescue Iranian hostages ultimately failed, but with today's technology, the outcome could be completely different. Maduro's capture is a real-life example. Ramsfield's "small-scale ground forces + high-precision aerial strikes" strategy proposed years ago may finally have the right technological conditions. War is no longer about "deterrence and overwhelm," but more like "precision strikes, rapid withdrawal." Ground forces are smaller in scale but rely on high-value intelligence resources — for example, Israel once invaded Tehran's traffic camera system to track the movement of the leadership. This pattern can be called "sneakers on the ground."

Next, what needs to be observed is whether this "precision warfare" model can continue to be effective, and whether new, more Western-friendly regimes can quickly reintegrate into the global market. I personally remain somewhat optimistic about this. Compared to years-long warfare, a conflict lasting 12 days or 50 days is evidently more manageable.

Other pieces on the chessboard are still in motion. Iran launched retaliatory missiles at 11 countries, indicating that at least 10 of these countries may become potential customers for Israeli "Iron Dome" and U.S. "Patriot" missile defense systems, or may need to replenish their interceptor missile stockpiles. If arms sales are linked to joining the "Abraham Accords," the game will become even more complex.

The flow of funds is also a key piece on the board. The Wall Street Journal reported that the cryptocurrency exchange Binance was used to transfer approximately $1.7 billion to Iran-backed organizations, including the Houthi militia. Such channels should be blocked. Interestingly, this amount is the same as the cash the Obama administration reportedly shipped to Iran in 2016.

From historical experience, oil and gas tend to be concentrated in the hands of authoritarian regimes, or more precisely, controlled by oligarchs and the elite. The Kremlin controls over half of Gazprom, the Russian gas giant, while Ayatollah Khamenei is said to oversee a financial empire of around $95 billion. In contrast, "silicon" thrives more easily in a free-market environment, such as in the United States, Taiwan, South Korea, and the Netherlands, which provide crucial technology for semiconductor equipment.

Free societies still have institutional advantages. If silicon becomes the new oil and drives the AI revolution, future wars may become more "computable." AI can not only conduct combat simulations but also perform full-scale war game scenarios. If Maduro or Khamenei could have truly simulated the outcome of advanced fighter jets and precision weapons against their vulnerable air defense systems, perhaps they would have made different choices. Other countries would obviously take such simulations seriously. After all, ChatGPT Plus only costs $20 per month.

Could this be the "peace dividend" of the AI era?

In the Cold War era, people believed that nuclear war would not occur because of "Mutual Assured Destruction" (MAD). This logic was frightening but has proven effective so far. In the future, if AI can make opponents clearly see the outcome of war through large-scale simulations, a new logic will emerge: SAD (Strongly Assured Destruction). In this scenario, perhaps negotiations would be more appealing than warfare.

The game of chess, is almost over.

[Original Article Link]