Geopolitical Expert: Iran War May Drag On For Years

Support for the show comes from VCX, the public ticker for private tech. The U.S. stock market started history's greatest wave of wealth creation, from factory workers in Detroit to farmers in Omaha. Anyone can own a piece of the great American companies. But today, our most innovative companies are staying private longer, which means everyday Americans are missing out. Until now. Introducing VCX, a public ticker for private tech, now available wherever you buy stocks. Visit GetVCX.com for more info. That's GetVCX.com. Carefully consider the investment material before investing, including objectives, risks, charges, and expenses. This and other information can be found in the fund's prospectus at GetVCX.com. This is a paid sponsorship. From the Goldman Sachs trading floor, in 10 minutes or less, investors and analysts share timely analysis on the week's market activity. The Markets Podcast from Goldman Sachs. Listen now. I'm pretty confident talking into a mic. Hey, I'm doing it right now. But home projects, I second-guess everything. Is that noise normal? Is that water damage? And who should I even call? That's where Thumbtack comes in. Upload a photo or voice note, and their AI-powered search helps diagnose the issue and match you with the right top-rated local pro. Instead of second-guessing or searching for hours, you get clarity. And can hire the right pro with confidence. For your next home project, try Thumbtack. They know homes. Hire the right pro today. If money is evil, then that building is hell. The show goes on! Welcome to Profity Markets. I'm Ed Elson. It is September 2nd. Let's check in on yesterday's market vitals. The major indices fell as the U.S. launched another round of strikes on Iran. More on that in a second. Brent crude rose. And finally, the yield on 10-year treasuries hit its highest level in more than a year and a half. On Kalshi, odds of a rate hike this year have now climbed to 77%. Okay, what else is happening? The bond market is having its worst stretch since 2006, and it is showing no sign. signs of improving. The 30-year yield is now back near 5.3%, a level it hasn't held this consistently in nearly two decades. And on top of that, Brent crude is now trading at roughly $95 a barrel, up almost 10% over the past week. These moves follow a fresh round of fighting with Iran. On Sunday, U.S. forces struck near the Strait of Hormuz, and Iran hit back the first major military escalation in a month. Then yesterday, the U.S. military announced even more attacks than opposed on Truth Social. Trump warned that if Iran were to retaliate, quote, there will be very little left of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Both bonds and oil are pricing in the same thing, a longer war and higher inflation. Here to break this down, we are speaking with Ian Bremmer, founder and president of Eurasia Group. Ian, thank you so much for joining us on the show. First off, what do we know about these attacks? How important are they? What do they tell us about the conflict at this point? They tell you that essentially the Iranians and the Americans are still involved in geopolitical price discovery. They are both trying to assert that they have more leverage over the other than the other is willing to accept. And that is both true economically in terms of the amount of pain that can be meted out by the Americans onto the Iranian economy through the blockade. And through sanctions as well as the threat and the use of military force from Iran. That is true in terms of their ability to continue to strangle some of the exports out of the straight and directly as well as through proxies and their willingness to engage in military strikes to ensure that they continue to have that leverage. The fact that there is no agreement on those things means that you continue to have an unwillingness to get to, a more sustainable place in negotiations. The Iranians demanding a return to the memorandum of understanding. The Americans saying go scratch. Look, these are still contained strikes. The Iranians upset that five to seven million barrels is getting through the strait, a lot less than was before the war, but more than a couple months ago has led them to engage in putting more mines, or attempting to put more mines into the strait and engage in direct strikes against ships that are going through. Once they do that, the Americans take shots directly against Iran. Both of these are still pretty constrained. In the old couple months ago, you'd be calling this skirmishing, right? You wouldn't call this a return to all-out war. It's certainly not an escalation that risks. Getting other Gulf states directly involved the way they were briefly, that kind of thing. But we're nowhere close to an agreement. And that means that you're still having significant amounts of oil that you do not expect to get through the strait. Significant amount you do not expect to get out of Yanbu, Saudi Arabia, and through the Red Sea or up to the Suez. And given that that has happened, in the context of major disruptions in the Russia-Ukraine war as well, there is upward push on oil prices, on gas prices in the United States, on gasoline and diesel prices. They have been balanced out by the fact that so much of Chinese demand has been taken off the market because they have massive reserves. But what had been $5 million in barrels of import a day has now ticked up to seven for the Chinese. So they are starting to show that they don't want to give up on all of their demand despite a higher price environment. That plus the fact that some of the stockpiles in the United States are at the lowest levels we've seen in decades. Diesel refining capability is also constrained. So that price is at record highs. Those things are going to continue to have a big impact. On price. And one final point, the fact that Trump worked very, very fast to suddenly announce a really big deal with Venezuela where the Americans will take an almost colonial position in the government directly engaging in an ownership stake in Venezuelan fields and extraction is because Trump sees that the impact on a low level of reserve in the strategic petroleum accounts and that prices are continuing to be higher than he likes, that he needs to address that. So we should not, from all of the activities that we've watched over the past several days, your expectation for the markets is that this is going on for the foreseeable, predictable future. Yeah, this seems to be what has changed, at least when I'm looking at what's happening, is the market's reaction. It seems as though over the past several weeks or so, markets have given Trump the benefit of the doubt, more or less, or at least maybe gave him some more leeway. Now we're seeing $95 a barrel on Brent crude. Now we're seeing rising yields on the 30-year and the 10-year as investors start to price in the possibility of there being elevated inflation, not just for the moment, but for the foreseeable future. How accurate do you think that response is? Do you think it's correct? Do you think it's correct for us, for the markets, to be pricing in the possibility that this goes on not just for weeks, but several months, maybe years? Yeah, absolutely. My baseline expectation that this is going on certainly through the midterms, that Trump does not see a reason to give up on the leverage that he thinks he has versus Iran. He's not willing to take the L on the blockade or on potential additional military strikes, before November. And if he's willing to go past November, he's willing to go beyond that. That's why I mentioned the Venezuela point. Like he's trying to come up with some alternative narratives for a war that he believes is going to continue. You can say that you're going to blow up the Iranians tens of times as he has over the past six months. You can threaten them, say that Iran's already functionally destroyed. No one's running the country. The Iranians certainly don't feel that way. They believe they have more leverage and that their leverage comes from the ability and willingness to continue destroying Iran. They're going to strangle the strait, including military strikes. And as long as that difference persists between the Iranian perspective and the American perspective of who has leverage, then this war is going to continue. Again, at a constrained level. We don't see the Americans going after massive critical infrastructure. We don't see the Americans deciding they're going to try to kill a bunch of additional Iranian leaders. Nor do we see the Iranians engaging in unfettered strikes against major infrastructures, across the Gulf, we don't see that. As much as I believe the markets are correct in assessing that over the coming months we are going to continue to have significant conflict and disruption, no deal that works, we should also recognize that the upside on escalation appears to be constrained by both of the principal antagonists. Now, that may not be true of Israel, particularly as we get closer to an election that Bibi Netanyahu may well lose in October, but leaving that aside, and the Americans would put pressure on him certainly not to take such steps, the United States and the Iranians at this point are not getting to a yes, they're not getting to a negotiated settlement, but they're also not blowing each other to kingdom come. If it's been more than six months since this war began, which it has, and if, as you say, both sides show no real signs of. being interested in letting up or coming to some sort of agreement, why should we not believe that this could be like Iraq, that this could be like Afghanistan, that this could last several years? Well, it could potentially last several years, but the Americans are very unwilling to put troops on the ground, so it won't look like Iraq or Afghanistan. They appear to be very unwilling to engage in broader strikes against Iraq. Iran and critical infrastructure because they know what would be coming in return, including with America's Gulf allies, so that makes it not look like Iraq and Afghanistan, and also Iran's leverage over the Strait is a wasting asset. There will be additional capabilities, radar defensive capabilities where the Gulf states can defend themselves and their key energy assets and their populations better over time where the Gulf states will have alternatives to get their energy to the Gulf states. They will be able to export their energy and other product out of their region. They'll export it without using the Strait. Other countries around the world will also find other ways to avoid the Strait, and that means that Iran needs to figure out what price they're going to extract from having influence because otherwise they're not going to get what they want. So they can't wait for two, three, four years, or they just don't have the position that they presently are in. For all of those reasons, this looks very different from Iraq. From Afghanistan, just final question, as you mentioned, midterms are coming up. One of the most important topics is affordability, i.e. inflation, and inflation at this point seems to be largely a function of energy prices and therefore what is happening in Iran right now. Do you see prices continuing to go up? Is that one of the takeaways? Yeah, I mean, again, Treasury is what we've seen from Besant is an effort by Trump to give a competing narrative, what we see in the conversation on Venezuela and the actions, an effort to give a competing narrative. Trump will say this is all fake news. He says the polls are fake. He says that the affordability is a made-up issue. The reality is that most voters don't see it that way. Trump is underwater. Trump is badly underwater on the economy. He's badly underwater on inflation. He's badly underwater in Iran. He's also badly underwater, since we're talking about water, on Lake Ontario, but hasn't stopped him there either. He just. He just doesn't care that much about the midterms. He cares more about himself. He's not the one on the ballot. Republicans that are running in November are very keenly aware of the difference between the two. Ian Bremmer is founder and president of Eurasia Group. Ian, really appreciate your time. Thank you. Great to see you, man. After the break, Amazon is headed to court. You know that feeling. Too many updates. Too many meetings. Too many things falling through the cracks. Monday.com was built for that gap. The AI work platform designed from the ground up for people and agents to work side by side and deliver more together. Drafting the brief, flagging risks, running a competitive scan. Your agent can do it all. And the best part? Anyone can build one. Even you. Try it. Create your first Monday agent today at Monday.com. ♪♪ Excuses are easy. An epic movie night? We don't have enough snacks. Dinner party with the girls? We'd have to decorate. Surprise date night? Nothing to wear. But Amazon's Prime same-day delivery lets you say yes before the moment slips away. Try that new popcorn maker. Order those cheeky drink glasses. Get that new perfume. And turn that I wish we could into an I'm so glad we did. Visit Amazon.com slash Prime. To find millions of items delivered fast. Same-day delivery. It's on Prime. Available in select areas. Terms apply. Hey, it's Ryan Reynolds here for Mint Mobile. Now, I was looking for fun ways to tell you that Mint's offer of unlimited premium wireless for $15 a month is back. So I thought it would be fun if we made $15 bills. But it turns out that's very illegal. So there goes my big idea for the commercial. Give it a try at MintMobile.com slash Switch. Upfront payment of $45 for three months. $90 for six months or $180 for 12-month plan required. $15 per month equivalent. Taxes and fees extra. Initial plan term only greater than 50 gigabytes. May slow when network is busy. See terms. We're back with ProfgMarkets. Amazon is returning to court. The FTC, along with 22 states, sued the company on Monday, alleging that it, quote, secretly and systematically overcharged advertisers on its platform. The suit alleges that Amazon manipulated its price, pricing and auction systems, causing over $20 billion in harm. The company called the suit, quote, misguided, arguing that the complaint, quote, fundamentally misunderstands how advertisers operate. This is the third major FTC suit against Amazon, and the monopolization trial is set for early next year. Amazon shares are down nearly 5% since the news broke. Joining us to discuss this case, we're speaking with our favorite antitrust expert, Jonathan Cantor. Former Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice. Jonathan, thank you for joining us. FTC is bringing a case against Amazon. Supposedly, they are misleading advertisers. Walk us through what we know about this. What do you make of the case? This is a blockbuster lawsuit, and I have to hand it to the FTC. I've been critical in the administration when they do the wrong thing, but I'm also quick to praise them when they do the right thing. And this is an example of the administration bringing in, court enforcement action against Amazon. And I should note that it's alongside a large number of bipartisan state attorneys general. So here's what the lawsuit alleges. It says that Amazon sells search ads. And by that, I mean, when you go and look for something on Amazon, you typically go in that search bar and you try to find something. Those ads, the rankings that show up from there are paid, and they're sold in an auction. And what it's the kind of auction is called a general section. It's a second-price, generalized second-price auction. So what that means is not what the highest bidder pays the amount they bid. It means that the highest bidder pays what the next highest bidder bids. And so what this is supposed to do is it's supposed to incentivize someone in an auction to offer their highest price. So this is a lot of science on this. It's become very common. This is how Google search ads were sold. So people, lots of small businesses on Amazon, a lot of sellers on Amazon, large sellers were bidding as the suit alleges, with this notion that that they're going to pay a the second highest price or penny above the second highest price. What the lawsuit alleges is that Amazon was cooking the auction, that they were effectively putting in a quote unquote proxy price in order to raise the highest second highest price of the auction so that they can squeeze out more money from the highest bidder. And what the FTC and the state attorneys general are arguing is that that is costing advertisers. These are the small businesses primarily selling on Amazon in excess of 20 billion dollars. In other words, would the correct analogy be I hold an auction and secretly bid on the thing that I'm selling myself in order to raise the price? Exactly. And so you're not bidding to win. You're simply bidding. The auctioneer is, they're participating in their own auction in order to raise the price for the winner. And the suit has a lot of really interesting internal documents and quotes from folks at Amazon saying they knew exactly what they're doing. And in fact, the suit alleges that they they slowly rolled this out and changed this so that they wouldn't tip off participants in the auction so that they can get away with charging them even more money. It's somewhat surprising to see this lawsuit, to see that the FTC would be stringent on big tech right now, largely because I mean, I think the last time we spoke was when we saw the ousting of Gail Slater, who is one of the heads over at the FTC in the antitrust division. I say ousting. She may be resigned. But we also know that she was told off by her bosses when she tried to investigate a merger that seems to have some relationship, or at least the defendants of the merger seem to have some relationship with people in the Trump administration. She got in some trouble. Her subordinates were then fired, then she leaves the FTC, that was sort of a watershed moment for me where I thought, OK, maybe this FTC actually isn't serious about antitrust. Maybe they don't actually care about these issues. But now we do see, as you say, a pretty significant lawsuit. What are we supposed to make of the actual heft and the intentions of the FTC at this moment in time? I certainly don't want to discourage them from bringing a meritorious case and doing it with bipartisan state attorneys general. So good for them. I'm glad they did the right thing here. And let's see how this case plays out. Now, the elephant in the room, so to speak, is the fact that Amazon is very close to the White House and Amazon is, you know, donates money to the ballroom or other kinds of endeavors, supposedly, that the president undertakes. And so the question is whether they will try to use their lobbying heft in order to call off the FTC or whether they've tried to do it so far. Well, kudos to the FTC for not caving or not giving in and bringing the case. And so the jury's still out on the administration's view on big tech as a whole, largely been quite disappointed. But when it comes to the FTC, I'll give them credit where credit is due. They're bringing this Amazon case. They're continuing to litigate the other Amazon case. And even though they didn't succeed, they brought the Facebook case to trial. And so that was the right thing to do. And I'm glad to see it. Speaking of Facebook, while we were on break, there was an enormous settlement from Meta. Meta agreed to pay more than $17 billion in penalties after it was sued by multiple states. I'd just love to get your reactions to that Meta settlement. That, to me, does seem like an important and pivotal moment in the story of big tech regulation, at least a moment where, if you believe that these companies caused harm, brought to justice in some sense. Yeah, for two decades, people have been clamoring for regulation or oversight or some accountability for big tech, especially with respect to social media and children. Section 230 and lack of government action, particularly by the U.S. Congress, has effectively allowed these companies to go by untouched and with no accountability for the impact that they're having on society, including on the mental health of children. That's the first time in which there is accountability. And when I say accountability, yeah, there's the money, right? $17 billion is a lot of money. But let's be frank about that. Facebook or Meta is not going to break a sweat from $17 billion. It's not going to have a material effect. What's more significant is that the states imposed behavior relief, meaning they are forcing the way in which Facebook and Instagram have to deal with children, what they can show, what times they can. appear. Now, in my view, this still doesn't go far enough. But if you view this as a floor rather than a ceiling, it's an opportunity to say, yes, these companies can be held accountable. Yes, these companies can be brought to account in court. And it's a reminder that we desperately need Congress and our government to take action here to protect the safety and security of children and society more broadly. What is it about this case that made it successful? I mean, as you say, it was decades of unsuccessful. attempts to regulate big tech. And then suddenly this happens. What was different about this? It's the big tobacco moment. So they brought the case using very similar theories, legal theories, to how states and victims went after big tobacco. So rather than making it about First Amendment and speech, they made it about knowingly designing their products in a way that will be harmful to kids and harmful to mental health. And so they were able to get past some of the Section 230 immunity. that has largely protected the social media companies up until now. And the fact that Facebook settled suggests they understand that these cases really need to be put behind them. And so perhaps it's the first step forward. The other thing that's really interesting about this is now that Facebook or Meta, the artist formerly known as Facebook, has settled, they have an incentive to encourage enforcers or regulators to impose regulation that holds TikTok and Alphabet's YouTube and others to the same standard, or else they may find themselves at a competitive disadvantage. And so what for till now has been the largest opponent in terms of Meta Facebook of regulation is now going to be a proponent of at least having similar kinds of regulation imposed on its direct rivals. And so the complexion of the whole debate has changed. Do you think then that this might mean that this is the first of many settlements or the first of many at least forceful acts of regulation? Absolutely. So we're, you know, just to be very clear, this settlement doesn't resolve all of the issues. There are plenty more coming. So there are municipalities, there are victims, families that have filed lawsuits. And we're just like big tobacco. I think we're going to see a wave of those lawsuits and perhaps settlements. But hopefully this is a wake-up call to Congress, which is that, again, country has been clamoring, for relief. They've been clamoring for some rules of the road, some lines on the road, some stop signs, some traffic lights, something to protect the well-being of the public. It's widely popular, has bipartisan support, yet somehow we have gotten nothing with respect to even protection of children and their mental health from social media. So we need to get moving on this. And hopefully this will be the kick in the shorts that Congress needs to start get moving. Before we let you go, I always like to hear from you about what antitrust cases you are looking at and what you think that we should be paying attention to. What should we be paying attention to? So there are a couple of things that are out there. First, the big tech wars and the big tech antitrust battles are still going on. We are waiting a decision from a court in the Eastern District of Virginia in a lawsuit that I filed that is designed to break up Google's ad tech business. We've been waiting for over a year for a court to render a decision. It can come any day now. It could be quite significant. The other big issue that I think is out there is the DOJ and the state attorney's general case against Apple. This has been a longstanding case that started when I was in office alleging that Apple has been abusing its position over the phone to gouge app developers and others. And we've seen a number of private lawsuits, including by Epic Games. But the broader DOJ case has a chance to be way more significant. And it's pending litigation now in the District of New Jersey. And one of the big questions at play, apropos of the questions you were asking at the beginning of our discussion, is whether, you know, Tim Cook and his gold bars at the White House are going to be used to try to settle that case now that he's in an emeritus and symbolic diplomacy role where his primary job as executive chairman will be to engage in the kind of diplomacy at the White House and elsewhere that nobody else really wants to have to do. And so we'll see if the DOJ has the ability to do that, whether they cave under political pressure from the White House. At this point, is that what is in the way of big tech regulation is some form of lobbying or trying to, as you say, act as a diplomat in your relations with the White House? I mean, is that basically the law, the only thing left? Well, yes. So that and Congress. And so on the antitrust side, you know, the influence of the White House has had way more impact on law enforcement in this administration than any previous administration since Nixon. And so traditionally, the White House, while it is allowed to weigh in on issues of policy, is not supposed to weigh in on issues of law enforcement. As we saw in the Live Nation ticket master settlement, which I think might have been the last time we talked, unfortunately, the White House has now had a heavy thumb on the scale in terms of interfering with law enforcement. And so to the extent that someone goes to the White House and lobbies them, they're willing to take action. So much so that there was a recent Wall Street piece that had some pretty jaw-dropping episodes where the president, according to the Wall Street Journal, by urging from Boris Epstein, who's not part of the government and potentially paid, or at least suggested might be paid by a third party, was encouraging the president to encourage the DOJ to settle, which he did. And they had settlement negotiations at the White House, according to the Wall Street Journal, where the president himself put his head in the door of the negotiations, telling them to settle. The only thing worse than that was the level of incompetence and how they did it, because they settled the case, and then they forgot about the state attorneys general, who stayed in the case, litigated it to a jury decision, and won. So ticket master and Live Nation did all that lobbying, but ended up losing the case anyway, because the state AGs had the wherewithal to continue. Unbelievable. Jonathan Cantor is former assistant attorney trustee of the U.S. Jonathan, always appreciate your time. Always my pleasure. All right, time for our regular installment of AI Bubble Watch on this show. Anthropic has just signed a $35 billion compute deal with a lesser known cloud company called Lambda. Lambda is what's known as a neo-cloud, i.e. a newer compute company. And the deal could be seen as that the AI ecosystem is diversifying away from big tech, away from these trillion-dollar companies that seem to be subsidizing the entire industry. Yes, it could be seen as that. If it weren't for the fact that Lambda is almost entirely subsidized by NVIDIA. Yes, NVIDIA is one of Lambda's largest investors. They're also Lambda's largest GPU supplier. And even more concerning, Lambda isn't even providing the data center in this agreement. No. Instead, another company called Hut8 will be renting out the data center, which will be leased not by Lambda, but by, you guessed it, NVIDIA. Why? Because renting that data center will cost tens of billions of dollars, tens of billions that Lambda doesn't have, but of course, NVIDIA does. In other words, this entire compute agreement has almost nothing to do with Lambda and almost everything to do with NVIDIA. Lambda is essentially just a shell corporation for NVIDIA. It's a subdivision that just happens to go by a different name. And the part you also have to remember is that NVIDIA is also an investor in Anthropic. People often forget that. So what do we have? We have an NVIDIA-backed AI lab that is buying compute from an NVIDIA-backed cloud company whose data center capacity will be paid for and leased by NVIDIA. So there is. There's no conclusion that you can draw from this deal other than the fact that it is circular. It says nothing of the underlying economic health of AI, this idea that AI is diversifying. It doesn't tell you about the underlying demand. All it tells you is that NVIDIA has a lot of money to go off and do stuff. Now, whether that stuff eventually turns into a sustainable ecosystem that can survive on its own, that is an open question. And it's worth debating. But too many companies and too many deals like this one are trying to con you into believing that the ecosystem right now is sustainable as it is. The answer is plain to see. It is not. Okay, that's it for today. This episode was produced by Claire Miller and Alison Weiss and engineered by Benjamin Spencer. Our video editor is Brad Williams. Our research team is Dan Chalon, Kristen O'Donoghue, and Mia Silvera. And our social producer is Jake McPherson. Thank you for listening to Profiteer Markets from Profiteer Media. If you liked what you heard, give us a follow. I'm Ed Elson. I will see you tomorrow. Running a business shouldn't feel like surviving a software group project. One app for accounting, another for inventory, another for sales, and somehow none of them talk to each other. That's where Odoo comes in, an all-in-one business management software that brings every part of your business together. From sales and accounting to inventory and marketing, all in one powerful platform. No messy integrations, no bouncing between tabs, and best of all, no spreadsheets. Stop managing software and start managing your business with one unified system. Try for free today at odoo.com slash vox. That's odoo.com slash vox. So, I thought it would be fun if we made $15 bills. So, there goes my big idea for the commercial. Upfront payment of $45 for three months, $90 for six months, or $180 for a 12-month plan required. $15 per month equivalent to taxes and fees extra. Initial plan term only greater than 50 gigabytes may slow when network is busy. See terms. This episode is brought to you by ChatGPT. Hey, it's Bill Simmons from the Bill Simmons Podcast. Have you guys heard about ChatGPT work? It's the new way to use ChatGPT for bigger multi-step projects. And when you need more than just answers, give ChatGPT work access to your apps and files, and it can create real work documents like spreadsheets, slides, and structured reports. Get started at ChatGPT.com by selecting work mode available on Plus and Pro plans.