Last September, I prepared a brief presentation outlining the world’s major conflicts and wrote the following about the Israel-Iran confrontation — now referred to as the “Twelve-Day War”: “There are every reasons to believe that the conflict between Israel and Iran is not over, and that the United States could be drawn back into it.”

The next phase of that war now appears to be approaching. In fact, attacks may already have begun by the time you read these lines.

What puzzles me is that the rest of the world has treated the buildup to this second phase as if it were insignificant. Although the large US military deployment received media coverage, other stories — such as the Supreme Court of the United States overturning tariffs imposed by President Donald Trump’s administration, and the ongoing fallout from the Epstein files — received equal or even greater attention. Financial markets, meanwhile, showed only limited disruption, confined mainly to a relatively modest rise in oil prices.

This apparent calm seems to rest on two main assumptions:

First, many believe President Trump will resort to what is informally known as “TACO,” a term suggesting that “Trump always chickens out.” This assumption is based on the idea that, as in many previous cases, the president will not follow through on his initial threats. The argument points to repeated instances where tariff levels were announced and then scaled back or softened once global markets began to fall sharply. According to this logic, it is assumed that he will stop short of attacking Iran, announce an agreement that delivers less than originally demanded, and then declare victory.

Second, the other pillar supporting this calm is the belief that Iran will not follow through on its threats if a new conflict breaks out, or at least that it would not be very effective in doing so. These threats include attacking US bases in the region, targeting any country assisting US and Israeli war efforts, striking US naval vessels, and most importantly closing the Strait of Hormuz, through which roughly 20% of global oil and liquefied natural gas exports pass. Such a closure would not only affect Iran, but also major oil and gas exporters including Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates.

Based on the old saying that “no plan survives first contact with the enemy,” here is why such expectations may be overly optimistic:

First, all statements from the Israeli government suggest that anything short of a comprehensive attack on Iran will not be acceptable, given that the Iranian government is unlikely to agree to Israeli demands, which include restrictions on Iran’s ballistic missile program and ending support for groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah. Iranian officials have so far insisted that negotiations should focus solely on the country’s nuclear program. The United States has also indicated that missile restrictions and ending support for allied militias must be part of any negotiations.

The previous conflict, the “Twelve-Day War,” began with an Israeli strike. I believe that if the United States does not launch an attack first or alongside Israeli forces, Israel may simply start the conflict and then request US support. It is highly likely that Trump would provide that support.

Second, both the Israeli and US governments have made it clear that their preferred outcome is regime change in Iran. I do not know whether the Iranian government believes this, but if it does, the next phase of the conflict would be viewed as an existential threat. In that case, Iran would have little reason to restrain its response, believing it has little to lose in pursuing a full-scale confrontation. It is hardly surprising that the Supreme Leader and the ruling circle would not wish to see the inside of a US prison.

If these two assumptions are correct, the calm currently seen in financial markets and world capitals could quickly turn into panic. Iran is unlikely to match the military strength of the United States and Israel, but it can still inflict significant damage through its arsenal of missiles and drones. Its most powerful weapon, however, would be closing the Strait of Hormuz. Oil prices would rise sharply, and the longer the strait remained closed, the greater the risk of global economic paralysis due to fuel shortages and surging prices.

Iran would not need to fully control the strait to halt oil shipments; it would only need to make passage unsafe. It possesses the drones, missiles, and patrol vessels required to do so. This would likely cause insurers to withdraw coverage, effectively halting tanker traffic. No shipping company would risk transporting two million barrels of oil — the capacity of a standard large crude carrier — worth more than $132 million at current prices without insurance.

Of course, the US Navy could escort tankers through the strait, but those vessels and tankers would then become targets for Iranian swarm attacks using missiles and drones. Defensive systems must intercept every incoming threat to avoid damage, whereas attackers need only one missile or drone to penetrate defenses to cause serious harm.

The United States may be able to neutralize such threats, but it is difficult to imagine tanker captains and their crews willingly testing that protection on every voyage. It is also unlikely that insurers would agree to cover tankers crossing the Strait of Hormuz under such circumstances.

I hope this conflict can be avoided and that a settlement allowing all sides to step back permanently can be reached. But hope is not a plan. Given Donald Trump’s background in entertainment and his inclination toward dramatic outcomes, we should not be surprised if events unfold like a Hollywood film, where an unwritten rule holds that if a weapon appears on screen, it must be fired before the story ends. For that reason, I believe the world should prepare for a less optimistic outcome.

Nickel prices rose during Monday’s trading as the US dollar weakened against most major currencies, while markets assessed developments related to US tariff policy alongside expectations of a recovery in demand.

Indonesia plans to issue production quotas ranging between 260 million and 270 million tons of nickel ore this year, according to Bloomberg. This level is slightly above earlier estimates of 250 to 260 million tons, but significantly below the 379 million ton target set for 2025. Authorities manage production levels through annual mining permits known as RKABs, with quotas subject to mid-year review.

PT Weda Bay Nickel is set to receive a quota of 12 million tons of ore this year, down from 42 million tons in 2025. The mine, located on Halmahera Island in North Maluku province, is jointly owned by Tsingshan Holding Group Co, Eramet SA, and PT Aneka Tambang. Eramet confirmed the reduced allocation and said it intends to request a review, while Indonesia’s Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources said quotas remain under evaluation.

Price stabilization

Indonesia is seeking to curb a persistent global surplus after its production surged to around 65% of global supply, a development that has pushed prices lower over the past two years and forced higher-cost producers in Australia and New Caledonia to shut down.

The quota reduction will have a major impact on the Weda Bay mine, which had planned to raise output to more than 60 million tons of ore to support a nearby industrial complex. Instead, the mine has imported significant volumes of ore from the Philippines to offset local supply shortages.

Nickel is used in stainless steel production and electric vehicle batteries, although demand from the battery sector has been weaker than expected as some manufacturers shift toward chemistries that do not rely on nickel.

In January, Macquarie Group raised its 2026 nickel price forecast by 18% to $17,750 per ton on the London Metal Exchange, citing a sharp decline in the expected surplus due to tighter Indonesian quotas.

Coal production cuts

Indonesia is also working to reduce thermal coal output, with mining quotas in the world’s largest coal exporter set to decline by about 25% compared with the previous year. The Indonesian Coal Mining Association said these cuts could force some operations to close and leave overseas buyers searching for alternative supplies.

Meanwhile, the dollar index fell by 0.2% to 97.6 points by 15:57 GMT, recording a session high of 97.8 and a low of 97.3.

In trading, spot nickel contracts were up 1% at $17,300 per ton at 16:13 GMT.

Bitcoin briefly fell below the $65,000 level during Asian trading on Monday and remained under pressure as large cryptocurrency holders continued to sell, amid rising uncertainty over US trade policy that weakened overall risk appetite.

The world’s largest cryptocurrency dropped 4% to $65,296.8 by 01:30 ET (06:30 GMT), after falling as low as $64,384.2 in the previous 24 hours. The currency returned close to the lows recorded in early February, when it briefly broke below the $60,000 level.

Other cryptocurrencies also declined broadly, with Ethereum coming under notable pressure after reports showed its founder, Vitalik Buterin, selling more of his holdings.

Whale selling weighs on Bitcoin as risk appetite weakens

On-chain data from CryptoQuant showed increased Bitcoin inflows from large private wallets — known in the industry as “whales” — to major exchanges, likely signaling further selling activity.

The term “whales” refers to entities holding large amounts of Bitcoin, often including early investors, institutional players, or digital asset funds, whose movements can significantly influence short-term price action when holdings are moved onto exchanges.

Transfers of coins to exchanges are generally seen as a signal of intent to sell and tend to increase price pressure on Bitcoin by boosting tradable supply.

At the same time, there appeared to be a lack of large-scale buying across most crypto platforms, with sentiment remaining weak after the sharp losses recorded in recent months.

Tariff escalation adds pressure

Renewed turbulence in US trade policy added to the negative trend. The US Supreme Court last week struck down a large part of the tariffs imposed by President Donald Trump, ruling that he had exceeded his authority in imposing duties on key trading partners.

Trump later announced a new global tariff of 10% on imports for 150 days, before raising it to 15%, the maximum allowed under the law, triggering fresh market disruption.

The tariff escalation weighed on equities and risk-sensitive assets during Asian trading on Monday, as investors worried that higher trade barriers could slow global growth and reduce liquidity — factors that typically pressure cryptocurrencies.

Altcoins decline as Buterin sales pressure Ethereum

Other major cryptocurrencies also posted sharp declines, with Ethereum facing renewed pressure after reports indicated that Buterin had sold additional holdings.

Ethereum fell around 5% to $1,878.63, returning close to its early-February lows.

Data showed that Buterin sold at least 1,694 Ether worth $3.3 million over the weekend. Although this remains a small portion of his total holdings, it raised concerns over further whale-related selling pressure on the world’s second-largest cryptocurrency.

Among other altcoins, XRP, Solana, Cardano, and BNB declined between 3% and 8%.

In the meme-coin category, Dogecoin fell 2.9%, while the $TRUMP token lost around 3.4%.

US economic data released on Friday added to cautious sentiment, as gross domestic product grew at an annualized rate of 1.4% in the fourth quarter, reflecting slower growth, while the personal consumption expenditures price index remained elevated at 2.9% year-on-year.

Persistently high inflation alongside slowing growth has complicated expectations for Federal Reserve rate cuts, reducing bets on near-term monetary easing this year.

Oil prices were steady on Monday as the United States and Iran prepared to hold a third round of nuclear talks, easing fears of a potential conflict and partly offsetting economic uncertainty following the latest tariff measures announced by US President Donald Trump.

Brent crude futures fell by 4 cents to $71.72 per barrel by 12:00 GMT, while US West Texas Intermediate crude declined by 4 cents to $66.44 per barrel.

Growing concerns over a possible military conflict between the United States and Iran had pushed Brent and WTI prices up by more than 5% last week, with Brent remaining close to six-month highs.

Tamas Varga, analyst at PVM Oil Associates, said that with the next — and possibly final — round of Iranian nuclear talks not taking place until Thursday, attention is shifting toward the US Supreme Court’s decision to cancel import tariffs and the subsequent government response.

US Customs and Border Protection said it would suspend collection of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act starting at 12:01 a.m. Eastern Time (05:01 GMT) on Tuesday.

However, Trump said on Saturday that he would raise a temporary tariff from 10% to 15% on US imports from all countries, the maximum level allowed under the law, after the US Supreme Court struck down his previous tariff program.

Varga added that the weakness seen earlier in the day was a defensive move. He noted that with uncertainty continuing over possible US military intervention in Iran, the ongoing Russia-Ukraine war, and now the US Supreme Court ruling, the direction of oil prices remains unclear, though volatility is guaranteed.

Iran indicated it is prepared to make concessions regarding its nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief and recognition of its right to enrich uranium, a senior Iranian official told Reuters ahead of the third round of nuclear talks between the two countries scheduled for Thursday.

In a research note, Morgan Stanley analysts said that despite higher prices in paper markets, the decline in spot differentials and weakness in physical market spreads suggest that pricing is being driven more by geopolitical concerns than by an actual supply shortage in the market.