Country vs. Nation: When Power and Meaning Diverge

 

I always contend that there is a difference between “country” and “nation.” Many countries are not nations per se.

A country (or state) is a political and legal entity. It is sovereign, with defined borders, a government, and recognition under international law. A nation is also political, but more than that. To me, a nation is a country whose population largely shares a sense of identity – based on language, history, ethnicity, culture, or even a shared narrative about themselves.

Some countries contain multiple nations. The United Kingdom, for example, includes the English in England, the Scottish in Scotland, the Welsh in Wales, and the Irish in Northern Ireland.

Some would also define China this way, but I do not believe the Chinese government tolerates this line of thinking, which I agree. I will return to this later.

Others define “nation” in an even narrower sense: as a group of people without sovereign rights or borders who share a sense of identity. Examples include Native Americans in the United States and the Kurdish people, who live across Turkey, Iraq, Iran, and Syria. Historically, Jewish identity existed as a nation long before the modern state of Israel.

When a country and a nation roughly coincide, it is sometimes called a nation-state. Japan is considered close to this model, as its population is almost homogeneous.

In essence, a country is something you can map; a nation is something people feel.

That is why nationalism can be so powerful. It is not just about borders or governments, but about identity, belonging, and sometimes grievance. This distinction lies behind many major global tensions:

• Independence movements (when a nation wants its own country)
• Disputes over minorities
• Competing national narratives within the same state

China: Civilisation-State vs. Modern Country
China officially presents itself as a unified nation-state, but in reality, it is closer to what some scholars call a civilisation-state.

• The state (country) is the People's Republic of China.
• The “nation” is framed as Zhonghua minzu (the Chinese nation) – a constructed, broad civilisational identity.

Internally, there are 56 distinct ethnic groups (e.g., Han, Tibetan, Uyghur), which complicates the idea of a single nation. The Chinese government tries to align nation with country—to make cultural identity and political loyalty converge - engineering a nation to match its country. Despite scepticism, it is nearly succeeding.

The US: White Supremacy from the Very Beginning

The United States is almost the reverse case. The country was founded primarily on a written constitution and political principles, rather than on a pre-existing ethnic or cultural nation. Nationhood came later, built around ideals rather than ethnicity.

American “national” identity is premised on civic ideals – liberty, democracy, the “American Dream” – not on a single ethnicity or ancient culture. But in reality, this identity has long been hijacked. White people dominated from the outset; slavery was introduced; Indigenous peoples were excluded; citizenship was effectively limited to white men. From the beginning, there was a gap between ideals and practice.

White supremacy played a major role in shaping American identity – through laws like segregation, immigration restrictions favouring Europeans, and cultural narratives of a “White” America.

Structurally, the US is constitutionally secular, but Christianity has largely shaped American identity. Public life has long been influenced by Christianity (e.g., political rhetoric, social norms). There is also a strong historical presence of Judaism, particularly in intellectual, legal, and cultural spheres.

Although these civic ideals were later used to challenge white supremacy, non-Whites have never felt they are equal. The American nation is built on universal ideals, but those ideals have been selectively interpreted, restricted, and fought over – particularly by forces like racial hierarchy and religious influence. Donald Trump champions this today. The US now looks more like a broken country, let alone a nation.

The Case of Australia

Australia is especially interesting. It has three overlapping “nations”:

1. Indigenous nations – Hundreds of distinct Aboriginal nations existed long before the modern state.
2. British-derived national identity – The original political and cultural foundation of the country.
3. Modern multicultural nation – Built through immigration, especially post-WWII and recent Asian migration.

The “country” exists clearly (borders, institutions), but the nation is still a work in progress, especially regarding what “Australian values” really mean. Fortunately, Australia remains a stable country.

The Case of Israel

The Jewish “nation” existed for millennia without a state. Modern Israel was created to realise that nation, but the country was originally Palestine’s. Thus, two nations compete within the same territory. In essence, the country of Israel is still contested.

Three Paradoxes

1. Taiwan
Taiwan is part of China; the majority of its population is Han Chinese. But separatists there see Taiwan as a separate country; some even see themselves as a distinct nation – a Taiwanese identity rather than a Chinese one.

2. Ukraine
Ukraine versus Russia is another clear example. Russians and Ukrainians are “one people.” Yet Ukraine asserts a distinct national identity - language, history, political orientation. After the breakup of the Soviet Union, the issue was politically and geographically settled. Unfortunately, with NATO’s instigation, Ukraine chose to abandon neutrality and pursue NATO membership – hence the war.

3. Palestine
The conflict involving Israel and the Palestinian territories is perhaps the most emotionally and historically layered. Jews have realised their nation-statehood but deny Palestinians the right to seek their own. Essentially, two nations claim the same territory as their country. This conflict is intractable. It is not just a border dispute but a collision of national narratives, histories, and identities.

Conclusion
A country is a structure of power; a nation is a structure of meaning. When both align, the result is stability. When they diverge, tensions arise and conflicts prevail. Unfortunately, the US is always undermining things! 

End

Trump’s April 6 Deadline

 

On February 28, Donald Trump, conned by Benjamin Netanyahu, started a war against Iran. The world knows that he has dug himself into a quagmire from which he is finding it difficult to exit. (He could, if he were a statesman, but he is too narcissistic to do so.)

The deadline by which he wants Iran to completely surrender – after two earlier extensions – is April 6.

Two days ago, Trump addressed a high-level White House gathering focused on the Iran situation. Essentially, he said that if the Iranians do not come to the table, the U.S. “would hit them very hard over the next two to three weeks,” threatening to destroy Iran’s critical infrastructure, including energy and oil facilities. He even used the phrase about sending Iran “back to the Stone Age.” In the same meeting, he also gave the impression that he was prepared to leave the Strait of Hormuz blockade to the importers of oil to solve. The latter did offer some hope that he was easing up on Iran.

The most tangible and market-visible prize that Iran has scored over the U.S. is that it has effectively restricted shipping. The U.S. does not seem able to do anything unless its troops go in to “liberate” the Strait – which, if undertaken, would mean a large number of body bags returning to the U.S.

We know Trump needs a trophy to extricate himself, even if only a symbolic one.

He has already claimed he has effected a “regime change” in Iran, and that Iran’s navy, air force, and missile programs are crippled. He repeatedly boasts that Iran is begging for a deal.

But the truth is, Iran is still raining deadly missiles on Israel and U.S. bases in the Gulf states. These cannot be excuses again; he needs a new one.

A new trophy is psychologically important for Trump’s style. The optics of Iran yielding—not just negotiating—are key.

Domestic political stabilization

This is a must-achieve “trophy.” His approval rating has dropped and economic concerns are rising. In reality, this may be the primary driver behind the timing of this mad pursuit of his.

Nonetheless, he still can claim many superficial “deliveries” – for example, a unilateral declaration that Iran has agreed to ensure freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz, and that talks are underway – but I suspect most Americans no longer believe them.

I am more inclined to think that he will launch a last-minute strike targeting Iran’s missile facilities, possibly a symbolic infrastructure installation, in addition to the remaining military bases. He will then declare objectives achieved and announce a willingness to negotiate. This potential trophy is visual – something he can point to and say: “We finished the job.”

Another possible trophy could come through the mediation efforts of Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Türkiye. He could claim that Iran has agreed to a framework agreement – even if thin – on nuclear limits and vague commitments on shipping or inspections. We know Trump can frame even a weak deal as historic. His rhetoric that “We’re giving diplomacy a chance” would continue.

External audiences

Below is a chart tracking China and the U.S.’s “favourability” in a survey of 42 countries. Suffice it to say, nothing Trump does will change the opinion the world at large holds of him.

But will Iran come to the table?

My guess is that Iran will not.

It has just been reported that Kamal Kharrazi, Iran's former foreign minister and a senior foreign policy adviser, was severely wounded, and his wife killed, in an Israeli airstrike on their home in Tehran. Kharrazi was recently involved in backchannel diplomatic efforts, engaging with Pakistani officials to help arrange a potential meeting between senior Iranian officials and U.S. Vice President JD Vance aimed at ending the conflict. This has led to speculation that the strike was intended to derail those peace talks.

And the U.S. has just bombed the B1 bridge linking Tehran and Karaj, a major satellite city. The bridge is a key piece of infrastructure. Some reports say it was hit twice. It causes disruption but will not paralyze the country.

These actions signal escalation and will toughen Iran’s resolve to fight on. Zeal and hatred will override any economic or rational thinking.

This time Iran is not unprepared…

Internally, the U.S. was shocked to learn that Iranian missiles can now penetrate its defences and hit targets with great precision. After suffering severe damage to its nuclear sites during the U.S.’s “Operation Midnight Hammer” in June 2025, Iran has wised up and decided to fully adopt China’s BeiDou-3 satellite navigation system, the more advanced version of which can provide centimetre-level kinematic accuracy. It is believed that Iran has also acquired 500 ballistic missiles from North Korea.

And in the U.S., the house is on fire…
Yes, some 5,000 boots are ready to land on Iranian soil. They will certainly be able to inflict severe damage on Iran’s oil and gas infrastructure if they do attack.

But at the same time, Pete Hegseth has just sacked Randy George, the U.S. Army Chief of Staff. Earlier, he removed Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Charles Q. Brown Jr. and the head of the Navy, Lisa Franchetti. Others include David Hodne (senior Army commander), William Green Jr. (head of chaplains), and several more. They were either appointed under Joe Biden and linked to earlier leadership like Mark Milley, or because they are Black or female. The U.S. system is supposed to rely on a politically neutral professional military, but what is happening is the blatant politicisation of the armed forces and the suppression of internal dissent.

This is lethal to command stability during a conflict.

(Trump has also sacked Attorney General Pam Bondi, and Kash Patel, the FBI director, is likely to go soon.)

Conclusion

I wish TACO failure, but perversely, I also wish him success in controlling the Oval Office – for this is truly a heaven-sent situation for China to continue scaling new heights in the “favourability” chart shown above.

Unfortunately, a prolonged war will not serve any country any good in the long run, China included.

End

 

 

In Relationship Management, Never Assume things…

 

I remember reading a book by the late Dato’ Tan Chin Nam – a name many Australians also know, thanks to his four-time wins of the Melbourne Cup – in which he advised one never to assume things. "Assume," he said, "makes an ass out of you and me!" It’s a simple, even crude, mnemonic, but its truth has been unfolding for me in unexpected ways as I grow older.

I seem to have contracted a form of Obsessive Disorder syndrome. I am always reaching for my laptop to write and post articles on my blog; the urge is spontaneous. I must have inundated my friends and readers with too many postings! A friend, finding my habit intolerable, finally wrote something to this effect: I don’t care about all the things you have been writing; I just want to take care of my own health. I fully empathized with his sentiment and lost no time in offering my apology, informing him that I would henceforth exclude him from my broadcast list. I had assumed he enjoyed the constant stream of my thoughts. I was wrong.

So, friends and readers, do let me know if you do not want me to include you in my broadcast list.

This experience opened my eyes to my own behavior in other areas. I am a member of several WhatsApp chat groups – my junior high school mates, my senior high school mates, my university mates, my Muarian group, my condo group, and several others. Because of the intensity of traffic, I have put some on “locked chats”, only checking them when I have little to do. For those I allow to come through, I usually do quick scrolls and read only things I find useful. Even then, I dread seeing a junior high school mate’s constant posting of his morning taiji exercises, his cross-country runs, and even the food he eats. I couldn’t help but rub it in, asking if some of the pictures were recycled. He didn’t seem to take the hint.

Several others would, without fail – almost daily – post “Happy Monday," "Good morning, Happy Tuesday," and so on. And yet there are some who forward everything they receive, much of which is fake news. I would "curse" each time I saw such messages upon being alerted to their arrival. I therefore understood my friend’s outburst completely.

Why had I been so blind? I had assumed my own digital habits were the norm.

When KC asked if I would like to meet up with an old university mate Keong who was on a cruise ship which would be making a port call in Melbourne, I gladly offered to join him to play host. We picked him up at the pier and played tourists on the City Circle Tram. We broke our journey at the Parliament House station and had a good lunch at Sharks Fin Inn nearby. Upon our return, as the rain began to fall, we waited for quite a while for the tram. It had little standing room when we boarded, but the next two stops were horrendous. Chinese tourists forced their way into the tram even though it was already packed like sardines. The tram doors were unable to close because they were blocked by these tourists, who were clearly scared of being left behind by their tour group. They simply refused to disembark. I felt a wave of embarrassment – another moment that reinforces Western prejudice against the Chinese. But later, I wondered: was I guilty of an assumption here too, assuming their behaviour was a simple lack of manners rather than a reflection of panic and group pressure?

We later adjourned to KC’s home for tea, talking nostalgically about our university days. On our way back to his ship, my wife served a simple meal for him at our place. There, Keong shared something very candid. A top student in our Mechanical Engineering class at the University of Malaya (UM), he said that after working for a couple of years, he decided he wanted to be a millionaire. He saw an MBA as his route. He went to the US, did very well, and was offered a PhD program, which consumed all his savings. He joined the university and later became a professor until he retired two years ago. Did he become a millionaire? No lah, he said, laughing.

I pulled his leg: if he had failed his MBA, he might have become one! I remembered a saying from my graduate school days – a Distinction pass paves the way to becoming a professor, an Ordinary pass makes you a decent manager, and a Fail destines you for great success in business. How apt.

It reminded me of another friend who spent six years getting his degree with us at UM. He is one of the few who was made a Dato by one of the royal houses. He used to joke: four years, honours degree; five years, general degree; and six years, datoship!

We also talked about relationships. One of my brothers-in-law was also our classmate. (KC, Keong and he graduated with first-class honours.) And like Keong, he went to the US for his MBA. In university, he was a dasher – good-looking and a highflyer. But now he shuns classmates. He cannot get along with his daughter’s Caucasian husband and, for years, has not been on speaking terms with his brother-in-law – who is my wife’s brother – who also lives in Melbourne. At first glance, it’s puzzling. But having worked for many difficult bosses, I have learned to read body language. And as I grow older, I have become increasingly mellow, even if I still "fight" with strangers over matters of principle. This mellowness has helped me get along with him, and with many others who have their own idiosyncrasies.

Even though I am opinionated, I no longer try to persuade or influence my two middle-aged children and their children. I don’t believe they even read the books I have published or the blog I keep. I am conscious that a grandson often says I am a little "disoriented" when I speak with him. Instead of correcting him, I let it be. After all, at my age, I know I am slow in connecting things and young people tend to be impatient.

This, I now see, is the true lesson from Dato’ Tan’s advice. I assumed my friend wanted my articles. I assumed my WhatsApp group members were thoughtless. I assumed the tourists were simply rude. I assume my grandson sees my slowness as a flaw. But letting go of these assumptions – releasing the need to be understood, to correct, to impose my own narrative – has brought a peace I didn’t expect.

With this attitude, I am happy to maintain a harmonious relationship with all my loved ones and a courteous relationship with friends and acquaintances. I no longer want to make an ass out of you and me. I just want to let things be.

End

 

Brinkmanship in the Gulf: Why TACO’s Iran Deadline Keeps Sliding

 

Donald Trump’s five-day deadline threat against Iran’s energy infrastructure lapsed yesterday. Instead of striking, he postponed it by ten days—to April 6. He claims he was happy to give Iran another extension because talks were ongoing and productive. Do you believe him? Iran denies any such talks took place.

What is credible is this: Pakistan and possibly Egypt are now acting as intermediaries, conveying demands between the two sides. We must take all claims with a grain of salt.

The Real Pressures Behind the Pause
Trump realizes – though refuses to admit – that the war he has started with Benjamin Netanyahu has been a disaster, especially given the closure of the Strait of Hormuz. Domestically, he faces strong economic and political pressure to end the conflict. Internationally, oil prices are spiking, allies are crying out for fuel, and the economies of Gulf states are coming to a standstill.

Nonetheless, strikes and military activities continue. Netanyahu is extending the war into Lebanon.

The “Boots” Are Still on the High Seas
The postponement is likely tactical and temporary. Two amphibious assault ships - Tripoli* and Bataan – have yet to arrive. *Tripoli* is Japan-based; *Bataan* is Atlantic-based. Both are being redirected toward the Gulf. The former is expected in early April, the latter slightly later. Each carries F-35B short-takeoff stealth fighters, attack and transport helicopters, and – more lethally – between 1,500 and 2,200 Marines, along with amphibious assault vehicles, light armored vehicles, artillery, and landing craft. They are capable of launching beach landings, raids, and ground troop deployments.

Except for Poland (if I am not mistaken), none of its allies have responded to the call to send ships to help open the Strait of Hormuz.

A Vulnerable Strategy
Amphibious ships are extremely vulnerable in the Gulf, especially in the Strait of Hormuz. Iran specializes in asymmetric coastal warfare. The northern side of the strait – Iran’s coastline – is one of the most dangerous environments in the world for large naval vessels.

The Strait is only about 33 km wide at its narrowest, with shipping lanes even narrower and highly predictable. Iran controls the entire northern coastline and key islands such as Qeshm and Abu Musa. Any ship entering the strait is already inside Iran’s weapons envelope. Iran has designed a system specifically for this scenario: naval mines, coastal and ballistic anti-ship missiles, drones, fast attack boats, and mini-submarines – all intended to overwhelm, confuse, and exhaust U.S. defences.

Amphibious ships like Tripoli and Bataan are especially vulnerable: large, slow, packed with troops, aircraft, and fuel. A successful strike would inflict massive casualties and cause a significant political shock.

The 82nd Airborne Division – widely described as the U.S. military’s rapid-response unit – has troops reportedly aboard Tripoli. While highly capable, the division is not designed to fight a full-scale war alone. It specializes in parachute assault and rapid seizure of key targets. Only about 2,200 troops of its total 15,000–20,000 are believed to be en route. The unit has limited armour and relies on speed, surprise, and air support – capabilities Iran already understands well. The U.S. would likely keep these ships outside the strait and move them in only after suppressing Iranian defences.

Thus, the Trump paradox: the ships are deployed to signal strength, yet using them aggressively inside Hormuz is extraordinarily risky.

A Pattern of Posturing
This pause is Trump’s own cocktail: a tactical pause, political calculation, and limited diplomacy. His behaviour is becoming a pattern – escalating rhetorically with ultimatums, moving forces into position, and then delaying at the last moment. This fits a broader style often associated with him: creating a crisis, personalizing the conflict, employing brinkmanship, and then stepping back to claim a deal.

It is unlikely that Iran, under its current leadership, will concede under pressure. Unlike Venezuela, its clerical leadership is driven by religious mission. The pause will only strengthen its position.

Trump’s Shameless Legacy Building
Trump’s shamelessness knows no bounds. His preoccupation with legacy has produced a series of episodes that range from the absurd to the self-aggrandizing:

1. A Statue in Venezuela

At a recent White House cabinet meeting, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum reportedly floated the idea that Venezuela might build a statue of Trump following U.S. actions there. Trump enthusiastically engaged with the notion, comparing himself to historical liberators.

2. Mount Rushmore Monument Addition

Trump has also asked about being added to Mount Rushmore. During a 2020 visit, South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem presented him with a model showing his face alongside Washington, Jefferson, Roosevelt, and Lincoln. The monument sits on land sacred to Native Americans, and engineers warn that further carving could damage it. (Unfortunately, you don’t have someone like the late Tan Sri Lim Goh Tong of the Genting fame in the US. The late Lim could easily create a fake addition to Mount Rushmore to accommodate Trump’s fantasy.)

3. Trump’s Signature on U.S. Paper Currency 

I hardly read mainstream Western papers now. But my wife just showed me another ridiculous act of sycophancy. Apparently, the US Treasury has approved putting Trump’s signature on new paper currency—a break from a 165-year tradition in which notes carried only the signatures of the Treasury Secretary and the Treasurer. Treasurer Brandon Beach called the move “appropriate” and “well deserved,” and has also floated the idea of putting Trump’s image on coins, though placing a living person on circulating U.S. coinage would require congressional action.

Zhèng Qì [正气] versus Xié Qì [邪气]
In my last article, I wrote about zhèng qì – righteousness and moral courage – and xié qì – deviant or corrupting energy. I chose not to broadcast that piece because it used my cultural background to contrast Chinese and U.S. leadership in ways many might not appreciate.

Rather than saying Trump embodies xié qì, I would now put it this way: what we are witnessing is not the presence of zhèng qì restraining conflict, but it is the manifestation of xié qì in Trump - where threats, self-centredness, and brinkmanship replace moral clarity and strategic consistency. 

Conclusion
With Trump, you can never tell what rabbit he will produce next. One thing is certain: he will not be kindly remembered by most future historians.

 

End

正气 (zhèng qì)

The term 正气 (zhèng qì) is deeply rooted in Chinese philosophy and carries a richness that goes far beyond simple translations such as “righteousness” or “moral courage.”

At its core, 正气 refers to a morally upright, life-sustaining force that resists corruption and disorder.

It combines 正 (zhèng) — upright, correct, just — with 气 (qì) — vital energy or life force. It is therefore not merely an ethical concept, but a form of moral energy embodied within a person.

Philosophical Roots

正气 is most strongly associated with Mencius (孟子) of the Confucian tradition. He believed that human beings possess an innate moral sense, and that 正气 is cultivated through righteousness (义), integrity, and the courage to do what is right.

A person endowed with 正气 does not bend to power, but acts rightly even under pressure.

There is also a Daoist dimension. In Daoist thought, 气 is the fundamental energy of the universe. 正气 represents its harmonious and balanced form, in contrast to 邪气 (xié qì) — deviant or corrupting energy.

During the Song dynasty, Wen Tianxiang (文天祥, 1236–1283) gave one of the most powerful expressions of this idea in his Song of Righteousness (正气歌), written while imprisoned before his execution. In it, 正气 is described as a cosmic moral force that fills heaven and earth and resides in those who remain loyal and upright — a symbol of moral courage in the face of death and an unyielding refusal to betray one’s principles.

The Nature of 正气

In essence, 正气 is about being the kind of person whose very presence embodies what is right.

It is reflected in those who:

• Refuse to lie even under threat
• Do not exploit others even when they have the power to do so
• Remain calm, firm, and principled amid chaos

Yet 正气 is not simply about being right. It is about embodying righteousness as an inner force that cannot be shaken.

(I understand that there is also a Western equivalent called Stoicism which emphasises moral firmness, self-discipline, and the refusal to be swayed by external circumstances.)

Social and Political Dimensions

正气 is not only a personal virtue; it is also deeply tied to social responsibility, loyalty, and historical duty.

Xi Jinping and Wang Yi, in my opinion, exemplify 正气 in their governance and diplomacy, amongst them:

• Upholding fairness in international relations
• Resisting hegemony and coercion
• Acting in accordance with justice (正义)

Their responses to global crises embody these principles on the international stage.

Wang Yi and the Language of 正气
Wang Yi frequently draws on classical Chinese expressions that reflect the spirit of 正气. These are not mere rhetorical flourishes, but serve as philosophical grounding for his positions.

For example, he has cited:

• 仁义不施而攻守之势异也
  (“When benevolence and justice are not practiced, the balance of power shifts.”)
• 兵者，凶器也，不可不审用
  (“Weapons are instruments of ill omen and must be used with utmost caution.”)

Such statements emphasise restraint, moral responsibility, and the primacy of justice over force.

A recurring theme in his diplomacy is the rejection of the idea that power determines truth, captured in the phrase:

• 拳头硬不等于道理硬
  (“A strong fist does not mean a strong argument.”)

He has also described China as a “ballast stone for international morality” (国际道义的压舱石), positioning it as a stabilising and principled force in global affairs. This framing is reflected in policy positions such as:

• Respect for national sovereignty
• Opposition to the abuse of force
• Non-interference in internal affairs
• Support for multilateralism and the role of the United Nations
• Resistance to coercion and hegemonic pressure 

Such diplomatic language reflects a broader Confucian influence on China’s foreign policy discourse.

Xi Jinping and Governance

Xi Jinping embodies 正气 through his domestic and international policies, amongst many others, such as:

• Large-scale poverty alleviation efforts
• Anti-corruption campaigns
• Emphasis on technological and economic development
• Engagement with grassroots communities

In foreign policy, he is advocating sovereignty, particularly for smaller states, and opposing what is perceived as Western dominance.

邪气 (xié qì): The Counterpoint

In contrast, 邪气 refers to forces or tendencies that are deviant, excessive, destabilising, or harmful to harmony — whether in the body, society, governance, or conflicts/wars against other countries.

In contemporary political commentary, Donald Trump, Pete Hegseth, Stephen Miller, and Lindsey Graham fit the traits associated with these evil and perverse human beings.

Regardless, concepts like 正气 and 邪气 are deeply philosophical and culturally embedded, and their application to contemporary political figures is inherently subjective. Many may arrive at different conclusions. However, I always hold strong opinions; feel free to disagree!

End

 

TACO, TACO, TACO – Is It Stock Market Gains that You Are After?

Trump’s Backdown
I am in Melbourne and was anxiously waiting for the outcome of the psychopath’s 48-hour ultimatum on Iran.

At 10pm yesterday (7pm Kuala Lumpur time), news came through that Donald Trump had backed down from his ultimatum, claiming that Iran had agreed to negotiate. However, Iran stated that no such agreement existed.

The contradiction is entirely understandable. You can never trust Trump’s words, and therefore the true reason behind his decision remains unclear.

I would strongly suggest that it is the U.S.’s ultimate strategic realisation, combined with domestic political pressure, that has caused the TACO to “chicken out” again—albeit for five days, as I understand it.

Trump issued the ultimatum on March 21, demanding that Iran open the Strait of Hormuz or face strikes on its power plants. Yet, two hours before the deadline, he de-escalated, claiming that the U.S. had “very good and productive conversations” with Iran. In his dreams? (Just a day earlier, Scott Bessent said the U.S. would escalate in order to de-escalate. You really do not know what Auntie Bessent meant!)

What Likely Really Happened

While public accounts differ, the underlying reality is likely a combination of factors:

·       Iran’s credible military threat: Iranian officials and media consistently stated that Trump “retreated” after Iran warned it would target “all power plants in West Asia” in retaliation. Iran understands that disruption of the global oil market is its “last remaining super-weapon.” The Strait of Hormuz blockade had already caused one of the largest oil supply disruptions in history, with Brent crude reaching approximately $112 per barrel.

The threat to Gulf states’ desalination plants is also real and would have severe consequences for countries that host U.S. bases.

U.S. strategic calculation: Despite his public claims, Trump appears to have been seeking an “exit” from what he calls an “excursion” into Iran. The war has not produced the quick capitulation he expected. The Revolutionary Guard remains in power, the new Supreme Leader (Mojtaba Khamenei) is still in place, and no uprising has materialised.

Domestic political pressure: The oil price spike from the Strait closure has been fuelling inflation and hurting American consumers, with gasoline prices approaching $4 per gallon. This poses a serious political threat to Republicans ahead of the midterm elections.

Military logistics: This pause may allow the U.S. military to resupply ammunition after heavy use of expensive precision-guided missiles in the early weeks of the conflict.

The conflicting narratives reveal several important strategic realities:

·       Iran is not collapsing: Despite significant strikes, Iran’s leadership structure remains intact, and its military capabilities remain dangerous.

It also dispels the mistaken belief that Iranians would come out en masse to celebrate the death of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. On the contrary, it has likely deepened hostility toward the U.S. and Israel.

Energy markets are the key leverage point: Iran’s ability to disrupt global oil flows gives it bargaining power that military strikes alone cannot eliminate.

The TACO phenomenon is real: Trump has shifted from demanding “unconditional surrender” to suggesting that the U.S. will not be responsible for permanently policing the Strait. (Notably, most allies are not sending warships to the area.)

The five-day postponement does not mean the crisis is over. The coming days will reveal whether this is a genuine diplomatic opening or merely a temporary pause before further escalation. We need to see:

• Whether talks begin between U.S. and Iranian representatives
• Oil price movements and shipping activity in the Strait
• Any resumption of U.S. or Israeli strikes after the five-day period
• Reports of U.S. military repositioning or resupply

Iran’s Vulnerability
We have often seen that Iran’s retaliatory threats are not always carried out decisively. Its actions tend to be reactive rather than proactive. Nonetheless, it has endured.

Based on recent assessments from U.S. intelligence and independent analysts, Iran is highly unlikely to capitulate anytime soon. Despite significant military losses and the killing of its long-time Supreme Leader, it has adopted a strategy of attrition designed to outlast the U.S. and Israel.

A Resilient, Hardline Government

As mentioned earlier, rather than creating cracks in the power structure, the conflict has made the regime more hardline. The system has become more entrenched under the control of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).

The transition of power to Mojtaba Khamenei has been relatively orderly and has not led to the expected paralysis.

Shift to “Asymmetric” Warfare

Iran’s conventional military capabilities—its air force, navy, and air defence systems—have been significantly degraded. However, Iran has never relied primarily on conventional warfare.

Instead, it has shifted to asymmetric tactics, for which it has prepared for years. This includes the use of low-cost drones and missiles, as well as leveraging control over critical chokepoints. With U.S. interception capabilities in Gulf bases degraded, Iran can increasingly deploy more advanced missiles against Israel.

Iran’s goal is not to win a conventional war, but to make the conflict so costly that the U.S. and Israel are forced to seek a ceasefire on Iran’s terms.

By effectively closing the Strait of Hormuz—through which about 20% of the world’s oil passes—Iran has driven up global oil prices, fuelling inflation and increasing political pressure on the Trump administration.

By deploying low-cost weapons such as the Shahed-136 drone (around $2,000), Iran forces the U.S. and Israel to expend extremely expensive interceptors, such as Patriot missiles (around $4 million each), creating a significant economic burden.

By utilising its vast mountainous terrain (1.6 million sq km) and a network of underground “missile cities,” Iran presents a dilemma: air power can inflict damage but cannot permanently eliminate a dispersed, hidden, and resilient force.

Are They Negotiating?

I believe it is all in TACO's dreams the night before.

I t

Contradictory signals: While Trump claimed “very good and productive conversations,” Iranian officials have firmly denied that any direct or indirect contact took place. Iranian media suggest Trump delayed strikes because Iran’s military threats had become more credible.

·       Iran’s conditions: President Masoud Pezeshkian has stated that Iran is open to ending the war—but only if its conditions are met. These include recognition of Iran’s rights, payment of war reparations, and firm international guarantees against future aggression. The U.S. has already rejected the idea of reparations, making a quick breakthrough unlikely.

In summary, while Iran is weakened and under strain, its leadership remains stable, its core retaliatory capabilities intact, and its strategy focused on fighting a long war of attrition rather than surrendering quickly.

The Fibre Optic Factor

Some have speculated that Iran’s ability to cut fibre optic cables in the Strait of Hormuz could be “the straw that breaks the camel’s back,” potentially crippling IT and data infrastructure across the Gulf.

While the threat is real, the situation is not quite so dire. The Strait is indeed a major digital artery, with several key undersea cable systems—such as AAE-1, FALCON, Gulf Bridge International, and Tata TGN-Gulf—connecting Asia, the Middle East, and Europe.

However, the greatest danger may not be deliberate sabotage, but the chaos of war itself.

·       Collateral damage: The most likely cause of disruption is accidental damage from naval activity, mines, or ships dragging anchors across the seabed.

·       Iran’s constraints: While Iran has the capability to damage cables, doing so would also harm its own connectivity, which is already heavily restricted.

The real danger lies in the inability to repair damaged cables during active conflict.

·       Repair ships cannot operate safely in a war zone, meaning outages could last weeks or months.

·       This creates a global digital bottleneck, especially with both the Strait of Hormuz and the Red Sea under disruption.

·       India is particularly vulnerable, as a significant portion of its westbound internet traffic passes through these routes, affecting finance, banking systems like SWIFT, and cloud services.

Or Is This About the Stock Market?
The U.S. stock market has reportedly climbed following these developments. Does this mean Trump or his insiders are profiting?

There is currently no public evidence that Trump or his associates have directly profited from this specific market movement. However, the sequence of events has drawn scrutiny and accusations of potential market manipulation.

A Pattern

The market reaction follows a suspicious pattern: Markets fell after Trump’s ultimatum; Markets surged after the postponement; and markets dipped again after Iran’s defiance.

The “Who Profited?” Question
There are two areas of concern: traditional stock trading and “war betting” markets.

Earlier in March, calls were made for an insider trading investigation after Trump posted “IT’S TIME TO BUY” shortly before announcing a tariff suspension that triggered a market rebound.

While there is no conclusive proof of his wrongdoing, the market did create opportunities for insiders like Trump, and by some accounts he did profit in suspicious ways.

(However, a rumour that Barron Trump bought $30 million in oil before the war was investigated and found to be baseless.)

I hate to think that a president can stoop so low to make money out of situations like this. However, one can never be sure what this chaotic psychopath might do.

Regardless of the speculations, this psychopath is putting the entire global economy at risk through his whims and fancies.

Let’s tune in again in five days’ time.

End