Imagine paying five bucks a gallon for diesel,
watching your local TV station get threatened
with this massive government blackout, and then
seeing a crazy 18 -point political earthquake
in a rural election. All in, like the exact same
week. Yeah, and the wild thing is that is not
a hypothetical scenario at all. That is the actual
literal anatomy of the geopolitical shock we're
living through right now. Right. So welcome to
the deep dive. If you're listening to this, you're
probably, you know, trying to make sense of a
world that feels like it's just spinning in a
dozen different directions at once. Oh, absolutely.
It's overwhelming. It really is. And to help
you do that, we're looking at a pretty fascinating
stack of sources today. We've got a political
newsletter, electoral vote news from March 18th,
2026, and a financial update from the weekly
market recap from March 16th. And our mission
today is really to trace the ripple effects of
this massive systemic shock. I mean, we are looking
at the ongoing conflict with Iran, but we aren't
just looking at the military movements. All right,
because it's so much bigger than that. Exactly.
We are going to follow this crisis as it like
crashes through global financial markets, spikes
the price of the goods you buy, triggers these
really intense domestic political battles over
free speech. And finally, it lands right inside
local voting booths in Illinois. Yes. Okay, let's
unpack this. Because the situation overseas is
escalating really fast, and the mechanical impacts
are just, well, they're immediate. They are.
The Strait of Hormuz is officially closed to
Western -aligned tankers, and the U .S. is deploying
additional military assets to the Persian Gulf
right now. And for anyone who needs a quick geography
refresher, the Strait of Hormuz isn't just another
waterway. No, it's incredibly vital. It is one
of the world's most critical maritime choke points.
Roughly 20 % of the world's total global oil
consumption passes through that one narrow stretch
of water. And when a choke point like that closes,
the global supply chain basically has a heart
attack. I mean, tankers either can't get through
or their insurance premiums just skyrocket to
the point where moving the cargo becomes completely
financially ruinous. But before we even get to
the economic fallout, we kind of have to look
at the sheer chaos this is causing within the
U .S. administration itself. There is a profound
fracturing of the narrative at the very highest
levels of leadership right now. Yeah. And we
have a massive, very high profile resignation
that illustrates that fracture perfectly. Joe
Kent. Right. So he's the director of the National
Counterterrorism Center, a known Trump ally and
a retired Green Beret with, I think, 11 tours
in Iran. 11, yeah, that's right. Right, so he
just resigned in this incredibly fiery protest.
over this Iran war. And we really need to impartially
look at the clashing perspectives here because
the rhetoric is incredibly intense. It reveals
a total lack of consensus. I mean, Kent is stating
unequivocally that there is no imminent threat
from Iran to justify this conflict. This is a
huge statement. It is. And he took it a step
further. He publicly blamed Israel for, quote,
manufacturing the war. Yeah. And our source specifically
notes that Kent's claim carries shades of anti
-Semitic tropes, you know, framing a foreign
ally as the secret architect of American military
involvement. Well, and the response from the
White House was just as explosive. I mean, President
Trump fired back, calling Kent a, quote, weak,
crazed egomaniac. Yeah, the wording was pretty
intense. Very intense. And he didn't stop at
Kent. The president is publicly blaming his own
director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard,
for even hiring Kent in the first place. Right.
So this isn't just a polite disagreement over
policy. This is the intelligence apparatus and
the executive branch just having a completely
public meltdown. Which, you know, bleeds directly
into the military strategy or honestly the lack
thereof. Because according to leaks coming out
of the Pentagon to NBC News, officials are basically
admitting they have no clear unified plan. That's
terrifying. Yeah, they are simultaneously planning
moving forward scenarios, which means escalation
and further deployment and exit ramp scenarios
to deescalate at the same time. Let me stop you
there, because... planning to attack and retreat
at the exact same time is a complete mechanical
nightmare. It really is. It's like it's like
an architect trying to build a penthouse and
demolish the foundation of a skyscraper on the
exact same afternoon. That is a great way to
put it. You aren't going to get a building. You're
just going to get a pile of rubble. I mean, it
completely undermines any sort of strategic leverage.
And the international community is certainly
reading it that way. I mean, French general Michel
Yacovleff actually went on television and bluntly
called the president, Le Capitan du Titanic.
Oh, wow. The captain of the Titanic. Exactly.
When allied military leaders are comparing your
administration to a sinking ship on global television,
you have pretty much lost control of the geopolitical
narrative. Yeah, absolutely. So let's bring this
home to you, the listener, because while the
Pentagon is trying to figure out if it's building
or demolishing, the global economy is taking
a massive hit. Huge hit. The International Energy
Agency tried to step in. They coordinated a release
of strategic oil reserves. The markets are looking
at that as just putting a temporary band -aid
on a gaping wound. Yeah, a very temporary one.
Right. So equities are drifting lower and treasury
yields are rising because everyone is terrified
of inflation returning. What's fascinating here
is how logically the financial markets are reacting
to this specific type of uncertainty. Investors
are looking at the board and making very calculated
defensive moves. They are retreating from cyclical
exposures, but they are holding tightly onto
structural like artificial intelligence. Wait,
let's break that down for me and for anyone whose
eyes just glazed over at treasury yields and
cyclical exposure. Sure. Why are yields rising
and what is the actual difference between cyclical
and structural? Okay, let's take the yields first.
When investors fear that inflation is going to
rise like right now because energy prices are
spiking due to a war. They demand higher interest
rates, or yields, to lend money to the government.
OK, that makes sense. They need that higher return
so their money doesn't lose its purchasing power.
Now, as for the stock market, cyclical exposures
are companies that rely on a smooth, humming
economy to make money. Like what kind of companies?
Think airlines, hotels, or luxury goods. If inflation
hits and people stop spending, those cyclical
companies just tank. So investors are dumping
those. but they are keeping their money in artificial
intelligence. Why is AI different? Because AI
is considered a structural theme. It is a fundamental
technological shift that is happening regardless
of whether the economy is booming or in a total
recession. Oh, I see. Yeah. Companies feel they
have to invest in AI just to survive the next
decade. It's not an optional luxury. It's structural.
So the money flows out of the vulnerable cyclical
sectors and basically hides in the structural
ones. And at the same time, we are seeing the
U .S. dollar strengthening significantly, right?
Yes, very much so. Which makes sense. When the
world gets scary, Global investors buy dollars.
It's like the ultimate financial bunker. And
since the US is a net energy exporter, the dollar
gets an extra boost when global energy markets
panic. Exactly. But, you know, you mentioned
inflation fears and that risk isn't abstract.
It's showing up at the pump right now. Oh, absolutely.
Our sources note that regular unleaded gas is
up like 80 cents in a month. But the real kicker.
And the one that actually drives inflation is
diesel. Yeah, diesel is nearing $5 a gallon.
That's an increase of $1 .34 in just one month.
That is wild. And you might be listening to this
thinking, well, I drive a small sedan or an EV,
so I don't really care about the price of diesel.
Right. A lot of people think that. But the massive
big rig trucks that deliver your groceries, your
clothes, materials for your house. They all run
on diesel. The freight trains run on diesel.
Exactly. When it costs the supply chain $1 .34
more per gallon to move goods, they do not absorb
that cost. They pass it directly to you at the
checkout line. And that mechanism, that transmission
of geopolitical conflict into domestic inflation,
it creates immense political pressure. Oh, for
sure. When an administration faces a chaotic,
expensive and increasingly unpopular foreign
conflict, coupled with rising prices at home,
their natural reflex is to look inward and attempt
to aggressively manage the narrative. Right.
And how do you manage the narrative when the
news is universally bad? You try to force the
news to change. Exactly. Which brings us to a
massive battle over free speech happening right
here on the home front. Brendan Carr, the chair
of the FCC, is actively threatening to pull the
broadcast licenses of television stations that
air news critical of the Iran war. Yeah. He is
publicly labeling that critical coverage as,
quote, distortions. And from a regulatory standpoint,
this is a profound stress test of the First Amendment.
I mean, it is a government official using the
weight of a federal agency to threaten the existence
of media outlets based purely on their editorial
stance on a foreign war. Let me push back on
this, though, because the logistics of what he's
threatening are completely absurd. Yeah, mechanically,
it's a mess. Does the FCC not understand how
television infrastructure actually works? Broadcast
licenses don't belong to the massive corporate
networks in New York. They don't belong to ABC
or CBS headquarters. They belong to the local
affiliate stations. And that is the huge mechanical
hurdle here. To punish a national network, you
can't just revoke a single national license.
Because that doesn't exist. Right. So if Carr
wants to punish CBS News for a segment they ran
about the Iran conflict, he has to go after the
local broadcast license in El Cuna, Pennsylvania.
Exactly. And Peoria, Illinois. And Tallahassee,
Florida. He would have to file hundreds of individual
market -by -market lawsuits, which would tie
the administration up in federal court for Yeah,
it's mechanically impossible to execute a sudden
blackout like that. Plus, our sources point out
a glaring hypocrisy here. I mean, Carr is exclusively
threatening television stations. He is completely
unconcerned with talk radio, which heavily features
conservative commentary. And that selective outrage
is really the tell. When a government actor makes
a threat, they lack their practical or legal
authority to efficiently enforce, you have to
ask what the actual weapon is. In Washington,
the threat of regulation is often the tool itself.
The source actually suggests Carr might be trying
to use upcoming corporate mergers as leverage.
Okay, so it's like a hostage situation. Essentially,
yes. If a massive media conglomerate needs FCC
approval to merge or buy new stations, Carr can
hold up that approval until the network adopts
his version of fairness in their news coverage.
Precisely. Or, as the source bluntly notes, he
might simply be performing for an audience of
one. the president. By publicly attacking the
media, he signals loyalty, regardless of whether
he can actually pull a single license. But again,
it feels like they're fighting the last war.
Does the FCC even grasp that they have zero regulatory
control over the Internet, over podcasts like
this one or over social media? Probably not.
The era where a single trusted voice like Walter
Cronkite delivered the evening news to a captive
nation is just long gone. The narrative is decentralized.
You can't put the toothpaste back in the tube
by threatening a local TV station in Peoria.
No, you can't control the flow of information,
but you can certainly flood the zone with anxiety.
Yes, that's true. Look at the environment we've
just mapped out, right? We have soaring inflation
fears, a chaotic overseas conflict with internal
administration meltdowns and high profile government
threats against the press. That's a lot. It is.
The vital question is, how does the everyday
voter respond to this exact pressure cooker when
they step into the voting booth. Right, let's
look at the hard data on that because the voters
in Illinois just had their say in the March 17th
primaries and the overwhelming theme across the
board was extreme risk aversion. Yes. Voters
were consistently choosing moderate establishment
candidates over progressives. The goal seems
to be minimizing risk to kind of defang the NBA
movement by offering the most stable unshakable
alternative possible. And the Senate race to
replace Dick Durbin is really the prime example
of this dynamic playing out in real time. Yeah,
you had Juliana Stratton, backed by Governor
Pritzker, defeating the more progressive Raja
Krishnamurthy. Now, Stratton isn't a far -left
candidate, but the source does note she utilized
a bit of a bomb -thrower edge to stand out. I
feel like there was some edge there. There was
even a Not Safe for Work campaign ad mentioned
that would have been unthinkable a decade ago,
but is apparently par for the course in modern
political theater now. Pretty much. But beyond
the ads, the historical context of her win is
staggering. If Stratton wins the general election
in November, Illinois will make history. It will
become the very first state to elect four black
senators and only the second state after California
to send two black women to the Senate. Which
is a massive demographic milestone wrapped inside
a broader strategy of selecting candidates perceived
as highly durable for a general election. Exactly.
And that preference for the safer bet played
out down the ballot in the House races, too.
It did. In Illinois's second district, moderate
Donna Miller defeated former representative Jesse
Jackson Jr., who was attempting a political comeback.
And in the eighth district, moderate Melissa
L. Bean beat the progressive candidate, Junaid
Ahmed. Right. Here's where it gets really interesting
though. Think back to what we just talked about
with the financial markets. When global chaos
hit the straight of Hormuz closing, oil spiking
investors retreated to the safe haven of the
US dollar and structural tech stocks to protect
their assets. When you look at the sociology
of these Illinois primaries, Democratic voters
are doing the exact same thing. That's a great
point. They are looking at the chaos of the Iran
War, the threat to their wallets from diesel
prices and the instability in Washington, and
they are retreating to the safe haven of moderate,
low -risk candidates to protect their political
assets. If we connect this to the bigger picture,
that parallel between financial risk aversion
and political risk aversion is profound. I mean,
in times of systemic shock, people just crave
predictability. An investor doesn't want to gamble
on a volatile, cyclical stock when the economy
is shaking. And a voter doesn't want to gamble
on a progressive disruptor when the geopolitical
order is shaking. They want the political equivalent
of a treasury bond. They want stability. That
is the perfect way to phrase it. They are buying
political treasury bonds. Yeah. But the Illinois
primary wasn't the only data point we got. There
were four special elections in deep red congressional
districts across Pennsylvania, Virginia, and
Louisiana. Right. And the Republicans went four
and zero. They won all four seats. Which on the
surface looks like a huge mandate for the conservative
base. But the margins inside those wins tell
a completely different, highly volatile story.
Tell me about those margins. Well, these are
ruby red districts that Donald Trump won easily
in the past. Yet, in the Pennsylvania district
specifically, there were massive 17 .6 and 18
.4 point shifts toward the Democrats compared
to Trump's past margins. Stop and think about
the mechanics of an 18 point shift. It's huge.
How does a district shift 18 points but still
elect a Republican? It means one of two things
happened. Or maybe a combination of both. Right.
Either moderate Republicans look at the chaos
and decided to stay home or cross the aisle.
or the Democratic base turned out in staggering,
unprecedented numbers for a random special election.
And it reveals this really fascinating dichotomy.
Republicans are holding onto their structural
advantages in deeply conservative geography,
but the underlying data points to an incredibly
motivated Democratic base. Yeah. When you combine
a highly energized opposition with a deteriorating
economic backdrop and an unpopular overseas conflict,
you are basically setting up a collision course
for November. that defies traditional polling.
So let's wrap our heads around this whole journey
we just took you on because it proves why you
really can't look at the news in silos anymore.
No, everything is connected. We started thousands
of miles away in the Middle East with closed
shipping lanes in the Strait of Hormuz. We watched
that geopolitical shock ripple outward spiking
the price of diesel and threatening to make your
everyday grocery run way more expensive. Which
leads to domestic tension. Right. We saw how
that domestic pressure led to the FCC making
wild, mechanically impossible threats against
the broadcast license of your local TV station.
Exactly. And finally, we saw how all of that
compounding anxiety is causing voters at the
ballot box to retreat to safety, shifting political
fault lines by literal double digits. Staying
informed across all these intersecting disciplines
is your ultimate defense against the noise. I
mean, you cannot understand the voter in Illinois
unless you understand the inflation data on diesel.
Right. And you cannot understand the price of
diesel unless you understand the geopolitics
of the Persian Gulf and the infighting at the
Pentagon. The systems are entirely interwoven.
It is a single, massive web. But before we sign
off, I want to leave you with one final story
from our sources today. Something that wasn't
about politics, oil, or government regulations,
but still perfectly captures the sort of bizarre
cultural friction of this exact moment. OK, what
is it? Last night. was the finale of the World
Baseball Classic. Ah, right. The triennial tournament
bringing together 20 nations. It's usually dominated
by a very predictable handful of baseball powerhouses.
Right. Going into the tournament, the consensus
was that only four teams had a real mathematical
shot at the trophy. The United States, the Dominican
Republic, Mexico and Japan. Well, everyone else
was essentially supposed to just be happy they
got an invitation. The baseball doesn't really
care about consensus. It does not. Yeah. Against
all odds, the championship game came down to
the United States against Venezuela. Just the
sheer unpredictability of a single elimination
format in a sport built on microscopic margins.
It really is a game of inches. So the US was
trailing. But in the eighth inning, Bryce Harper
hit this massive home run to tie the game, shifting
all the momentum. Wow. But then Eugenio Suarez
stepped up and hit a double to put Venezuela
back ahead three to two. Unbelievable. And to
close the game out, Venezuela brought in Daniel
Palencia. He's a closer for the Chicago Cubs,
but he was operating under incredibly strict
prearranged Major League Baseball conditions.
Like, he was only allowed by his pro team to
pitch if it was the bottom of the ninth in a
definitive save situation. Talk about pressure.
Seriously. But he met the exact conditions, took
the mound, got three consecutive outs, and Venezuela
won the World Baseball Classic. It is such an
incredible underdog sports story. But our source
leaves us with a very pointed sociological observation
about that matchup. They really did. They hinted
that the Venezuelan team seemed to have, quote,
a little extra motivation to beat the United
States on a global stage. And that is the perfect
provocative question to leave you with today.
We spent the last 20 minutes talking about the
overt, quantifiable ways that international conflict
impacts our world. markets, political boundaries,
gas prices. But how deeply do geopolitical tensions
and years of economic sanctions seep into the
global subconscious? When two nations step onto
a diamond, when does a simple game of baseball
stop being just a game and start becoming a proxy
battle for national pride and geopolitical validation?
It really proves that when the systemic shock
hits, the tension doesn't just stay in the boardroom
or the war room, it leaks onto the field too.
It leaks everywhere. Thank you so much for joining
us on this deep dive. Keep questioning the narratives
around you, look for the hidden mechanisms driving
the headlines, and we'll catch you next time.