AI stocks. Metals. Crypto.

Surprise, surprise; gold crashed 16%. Silver plunged 34%. Bitcoin dropped to 1 year lows.

All supposedly "uncorrelated" assets moving in lockstep largely because of overleveraged margin.

JPM strategists warn that the same leverage is still a risk.

Those markets may be recovering now, but cascading liquidations could trigger quickly across several asset classes simultaneously.

So much for diversifying away risk, right?

But get this–

70,819 everyday investors have allocated $1.3 billion fractionally across 500+ exclusive investments. 

Not real estate or PE… Blue-chip art. Sounds crazy, right?

Now it’s easy to invest in art featuring legends like Banksy, Basquiat, and Picasso, thanks to Masterworks.

They do the heavy lifting from acquisition to sale, so you can diversify with the strategy typically limited to the ultra-wealthy.

(Past sales delivered net returns like 14.6%, 17.6%, and 17.8% on works held longer than a year.)*

Our subscribers skip the waitlist

_{*Investing involves risk.  Past performance is not indicative of future returns. Important Reg A disclosures: masterworks.com/cd}

What you need to know

War with Iran now a regional conflict with global implications

The war has evolved into a self-sustaining, multi-theater regional conflict affecting and involving a host of nations: Israel, the U.S., Iran, Hezbollah, the Gulf states that host U.S. forces, Jordan, Azerbaijan, Iraq, Turkey, France, Greece, the UK, and Italy. 

U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said Washington is still defining its objectives as degrading Iran’s offensive missile capability, production base, navy, and nuclear pathway, without formally widening the mission beyond that. Even so, the operational scale is already vast: U.S. Central Command has reported that more than 2,000 targets have been struck in Iran, alongside major losses to Iranian naval assets.

At the strategic level, Iran is under its most severe external military pressure since the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was killed in the opening phase of the war, leaving Iran to prosecute the conflict while also confronting the question of political succession. That reduces the chances of a quick, controlled de-escalation: wars that begin with decapitation strikes often become struggles over regime survival rather than limited bargaining contests.

On the military front, Israel and the U.S. appear to have secured substantial freedom to strike fixed targets in Iran, particularly infrastructure, air defenses, naval assets, and parts of the missile enterprise. The current phase of the campaign is focused on dismantling missile production, suggesting that the opening effort against launchers, air defenses, and command nodes did not eliminate Iran’s ability to keep firing. In effect, the allied campaign appears to have shifted from immediate suppression to a longer war of attrition aimed at Iran’s capacity to regenerate.

Iran, however, retains enough capability to keep the war dangerous. It continues to launch missiles and drones at Israel and at U.S.-aligned states across the Gulf. Attacks or attempted attacks have impacted Israel, the UAE, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait, Azerbaijan, Cyprus, and Türkiye.

Two conclusions follow. First, Iran still possesses meaningful strike capacity despite the damage it has absorbed. Second, Tehran appears to be trying to widen the political cost of the war by punishing countries that facilitate U.S. and Israeli operations, even when those countries are not formal belligerents.

The balance between missiles and drones is becoming central. Some analysts are asserting that Iran may have used older missiles and drones first, partly to strain and deplete air defenses. Meanwhile, drones, sea mines, and other lower-cost methods could allow Iran to keep the Strait of Hormuz disrupted for months. This matters because even if Israel and the U.S. can steadily wear down ballistic missile launchers, drones are cheaper, easier to disperse, easier to produce, and still capable of imposing economic and psychological costs, especially when fired in swarms or in combination with missiles.

The energy front is now one of the war’s most important theaters. The Strait of Hormuz has been closed, at least in practical terms, and that the disruption has already pushed crude prices higher. More than half of Iraq’s oil industry has been shut down because it cannot export via ship through the Persian Gulf. Qatar has halted LNG production earlier this week, while broader regional market and shipping disruptions continue to grow. Even if some of this can be cushioned by stored oil, rerouting, spare capacity elsewhere, and strategic reserves, the war has already moved beyond a purely military confrontation and become a direct threat to the world economy.

The Gulf monarchies are in a far more exposed position than they had hoped to occupy. Iran’s decision to target Gulf states that host U.S. forces risks collapsing their preferred posture of cautious distance. Tehran may be trying to intimidate the Gulf into neutrality, but the practical result will likely prove to be the opposite if attacks on cities, oil facilities, ports, and U.S. bases continue.

Air and missile defense performance has been superb, but some are still getting through. Gulf and allied air defenses have intercepted many incoming projectiles, but the fact that Iran is still landing enough strikes to kill U.S. personnel, disrupt infrastructure, and force policy changes shows that interception is not the same as impermeability. Even a high interception rate becomes insufficient when the attacker can keep launching at scale, vary vectors, and exploit cheaper drones against expensive interceptors. This does not mean the defenses are collapsing, in fact they are performing at a very high level. But it does suggest a familiar cost-exchange problem, as well as the challenge of saturation. The defenders are containing much of the threat, but not eliminating it.

Lebanon has now become the most dangerous secondary front. Hezbollah entered the war on Monday after Khamenei’s killing (which it had previously described as a red line), opening fire on Israel and prompting a major Israeli response. This was despite an agreement between the U.S. and Israel not to target Lebanon so long as no attacks on Israel came from Lebanese soil. Israeli operations have since widened across Lebanon, including Beirut’s southern suburbs, and ground combat has been reported near the southern border. Israel has deployed the 91st and 146th division into south Lebanon, while Hezbollah has fired missiles and claimed unconfirmed attacks on Israeli forces.

The humanitarian and social implications for Lebanon are severe and worsening. Official government figures report than 83,000 displaced in Lebanon, while123 killed and 683 wounded this week in Israeli attacks. World Health Organization reporting put Lebanon-related displacement above 60,000 in one tally. These figures are moving quickly, and different organizations are using different cutoffs, so they are better treated as indicative than definitive. There are more than a million people living in areas that Israel has ordered evacuated (including the entire city of Tyre), so the number is much higher than official figures. Even so, the direction is clear: large-scale displacement is underway again, including from the south and since yesterday afternoon from Beirut’s southern suburbs.

As for Hezbollah’s military position, it appears willing to fight but structurally constrained. It can still fire missiles, harass Israeli forces, and impose localized costs. But it is entering this phase after years of Israeli intelligence penetration and after seeing what happened to Iran’s command structure and strategic assets. Israeli attacks have hit hundreds of sites in Lebanon, including missile launchers, while Hezbollah is already carrying the burden of defending territory under intense surveillance and air attack. The group may be able to make an Israeli buffer zone costly, but its freedom of action appears much narrower than in earlier periods, and Lebanon as a whole is likely to pay heavily for that choice.  

Inside Iran, the picture is one of military strain, social dislocation, and external isolation. There are more than 1,000 dead in Iran by some accounts, about 100,000 displaced according to World Health Organization-linked reporting. Moscow and Beijing appear to be offering diplomatic cover rather than military rescue. That leaves Tehran largely on its own, trying to show that it can still impose pain, preserve internal cohesion, and outlast the initial U.S.-Israeli assault.

The next phase is therefore unlikely to be a quick ending. More likely, it will be an ugly contest of attrition and endurance. The U.S. and Israel will probably keep pressing Iran’s missile production, naval disruption capability, and command networks. Iran is likely to continue retaliating through missiles, drones, maritime disruption, and pressure on softer regional targets. Hezbollah is likely to remain in the fight unless overwhelming Lebanese internal pressure or catastrophic battlefield losses force it to pull back. The biggest near-term variables are whether the Gulf is drawn in more directly, whether Hormuz remains shut long enough to create a deeper energy shock, and whether Iran’s internal succession struggle fragments decision-making further.  

The bottom line is that the war is now regional in scope, potentially globally economically consequential, and still escalating. Israel and the U.S. have inflicted major damage on Iran, but they have not stopped Iran from striking back. Iran is weaker, but also more likely to fight as though the regime’s survival is at stake, because it is. That combination makes this phase especially dangerous.

Move fast and break things

Noem is pushed out at Homeland Security

President Donald Trump fired Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem yesterday, ending a tenure that had come under growing pressure over the administration’s immigration crackdown, criticism of its disaster response, and controversy surrounding an advertising campaign costing roughly $200 million to $220 million that prominently featured Noem. Trump said he would nominate Senator Markwayne Mullin of Oklahoma to replace her and would reassign Noem as “Special Envoy for the Shield of the Americas”, a new Western Hemisphere security initiative. The decision appears to be an attempt at political damage limitation while preserving a hard-line immigration policy under different leadership.

Birthplace of civilization

Strikes spread to commercial shipping in Hormuz as traffic seizes up

A strike on the container ship Safeen Prestige has shown how far the Gulf crisis has spread into commercial shipping. The Malta-flagged feeder vessel, with a capacity of roughly 1,700 TEU, operated by Global Feeder Systems, part of AD Ports Group, was hit while transiting eastbound through the Strait of Hormuz, according to maritime reporting and shipping sources. The strike reportedly caused an engine-room fire, forcing the crew to abandon ship before they were rescued by Omani authorities.

The vessel is not an isolated case. Public reporting points to a growing list of merchant ships hit in and around Gulf waters since the war began. There have been attacks on the tanker MKD VYOM off Oman, where one crew member was killed; the U.S.-flagged products tanker Stena Imperative in Bahrain; and the Honduran-flagged tanker Athe Nova in the Strait of Hormuz. Overall, at least nine vessels had been attacked since the conflict erupted, indicating that the danger is no longer confined to naval assets or energy infrastructure.

The effect on shipping has been serious. Ship-tracking and market data cited show that roughly 200 tankers and other cargo vessels have been idling in Gulf waters, while transits through Hormuz have fallen sharply. Tanker movements through the strait are down by about 90%, a slump that is now feeding directly into tighter Asian fuel markets and higher bunker prices.

Commercial disruption is being worsened by the insurance market. Major marine insurers have canceled war-risk cover for vessels operating in Iranian and surrounding Gulf waters, leaving many shipowners unwilling, or unable, to sail. Rates for crude tankers have jumped, and some liner operators have rerouted or suspended services rather than accept the risk of passage through the waterway.

The result is that Hormuz is no longer merely a zone of elevated danger. It is becoming a partially paralyzed trade corridor, with merchant ships under direct threat, insurers retreating, vessels piling up on either side of the chokepoint, and the knock-on effects already spreading into oil, fuel, and freight markets far beyond the Gulf. 

Mass evacuation after Israeli warning hits Beirut’s southern suburbs

Israel’s warning for residents to leave Beirut’s southern suburbs set off a mass exodus yesterday afternoon, clogging roads and pushing displaced families into central Beirut hours before airstrikes hit the area.

This is the first blanket evacuation order of its kind for the southern suburbs in the current round of fighting, illustrating how quickly the Lebanon front has intensified since Hezbollah entered the war tied to the wider U.S.-Israeli campaign against Iran.

At the same time, the Lebanese government moved publicly against Iran’s presence inside the country. After a cabinet meeting, ministers said that any members of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard found engaging in activity on Lebanese territory would be investigated and stopped by the security agencies. Those found carrying out such activity, they added, would be detained under judicial supervision and prepared for deportation. The cabinet also restored visa requirements for Iranian citizens, reversing easier entry rules in the name of tighter border controls and national security.

Lebanese security forces then said they had arrested 17 people carrying weapons illegally through checkpoints, including 16 Iranian nationals and one Palestinian, giving the government’s announcement immediate practical force. Politically, the message was clear: Beirut is trying to show both domestic and foreign audiences that it does not want Lebanese territory to serve as an open arena for Iranian military activity as the regional war intensifies.  

On the ground in the south, the fighting appears to be widening, though in a measured way rather than through an all-out invasion. Israel had already occupied five positions in southern Lebanon since the ceasefire of November 2024 and has now authorized forces to take additional positions, reportedly intending to take a band of Lebanese territory 5km (3 miles) deep. Local reporting describes operations around border localities including Kfarkela and nearby areas, while UNIFIL and major wire services confirmed ground combat near the frontier as Israeli forces expanded operations, and Hezbollah sent it fighters back into the south.

That suggests the newly occupied territory in southern Lebanon remains limited for now, concentrated in a narrow belt of border areas rather than in a deep push northward. There is no major Israeli ground offensive underway across southern Lebanon as a whole. Israel is gradually enlarging tactical positions, maintaining pressure on Hezbollah and preserving the option of a broader operation later.  

There are also signs that Israeli manpower is under strain across several fronts. Israel has called up large numbers of reservists to reinforce several theaters, including the northern border and the West Bank, while also maintaining deployments linked to the wider confrontation with Iran. That does not rule out a broader move in Lebanon, but it does suggest that Israel is weighing the Lebanese front against demands elsewhere rather than concentrating overwhelmingly on one theater.

Hezbollah, for its part, has continued firing rockets, drones, and missiles into Israel, and Israel is using those attacks as both a military and political rationale for continued strikes in Lebanon.  

Taken together, the picture is of a Lebanon being drawn deeper into a regional war on two levels at once: from above, through Israeli airstrikes and evacuation warnings reaching into the capital; and from within, through a renewed contest over whether Iranian operatives and Hezbollah can continue using Lebanese territory as part of Tehran’s war effort. Beirut’s new measures against Iranian activity amount to an attempt to draw a line. Whether the state can enforce it, especially under wartime pressure, is a far harder question.

The ultimate complex system

Oil shock without shortage: War worries markets but global supply buffers remain

Oil prices have surged as war in the Gulf disrupts one of the world’s most important energy arteries, but the shock to physical supply at this time may prove less catastrophic than the most alarmist claims suggest. 

The market is grappling not only with lost or delayed production, but also with a vast logistical dislocation: barrels are stranded, shipping routes are under pressure, and refiners are struggling to secure crude in the right place at the right time.

The immediate concern is the Strait of Hormuz, through which roughly a fifth of the world’s oil consumption and about a quarter of global seaborne oil trade typically passes. Any serious disruption there inevitably jolts prices. Iraq has already cut output heavily, Asian refiners have reduced runs, and traders are scrambling to assess how many barrels have truly been removed from the market and how many are merely delayed or redirected.

That distinction matters. The gross volume of oil endangered by Hormuz disruption is enormous, but the net loss to global supply is likely to be smaller. Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates possess some pipeline capacity that bypasses the strait, offering at least partial relief. Those routes cannot fully replace normal maritime flows, and their real emergency throughput remains uncertain, but they do provide a cushion.

The market also entered this crisis with more buffers than in some earlier oil shocks. Global inventories had risen substantially before the current fighting, including a large increase in crude and products held on water. Those floating barrels do not solve every problem. Oil parked at sea is not the same as oil delivered to a refinery, and sanctions, insurance, freight constraints, and payment channels all limit how quickly some cargoes can be mobilized. Even so, they represent a meaningful reserve of supply.

That is especially true of sanctioned or semi-stranded crude. Russian oil held on tankers and Iranian barrels in floating storage may now play a larger role in easing the squeeze, particularly for buyers willing or able to navigate the legal and political constraints. China, meanwhile, appears better insulated than many importers because of its large strategic reserves and access to additional crude held offshore. 

The result is a market that is tight, nervous, and volatile, but not necessarily facing an immediate and absolute shortage on the scale implied by the most dramatic rhetoric you’ll find online. Prices are rising because the system is under strain and because traders are pricing in risk. Yet the world still has alternative barrels, stored crude, and some rerouting capacity that could soften the blow.

For now, the central problem is not simply that oil has vanished. It is that the oil market is being forced to rewire itself in the middle of a war. That keeps upward pressure on prices, especially for refined products such as diesel and jet fuel, while leaving open the possibility that inventories, floating storage, and bypass exports could prevent a severe supply shock from becoming a full-scale global energy crisis.

Food risks spread beyond oil

The widening war with Iran is beginning to look less like a narrow energy shock and more like a serious test for the global food system.

The immediate danger is not that the world suddenly runs out of grain. It is that the conflict disrupts the fuel, fertilizer, and shipping networks on which modern agriculture depends.

With traffic through and around the Strait of Hormuz under pressure, oil and gas prices have risen, fertilizer shipments have been delayed, and regional logistics have become more difficult and more costly. Fertilizer prices at the New Orleans import hub rose from about $516 a metric ton on Friday to as high as $683 by Thursday, an indication of how quickly the market has responded.

The first effects on food are likely to be felt not on the world’s biggest farms, but in the import-dependent states of the Gulf and in fragile countries that rely on Gulf ports and re-export hubs. Gulf countries import roughly 80-90% of their food. Moreover, countries such as Yemen, Sudan, and Somalia depend heavily on the UAE as a transshipment point. That makes delays, shortages of perishables, and rising local food prices more likely in the near term than an outright collapse in global staple supplies.

The greater threat to world agricultural output lies in fertilizer. The Gulf is a major corridor for urea, ammonia, and other farm inputs, and the war has already shut fertilizer plants and disrupted exports just as spring planting gets under way in parts of the world. That matters because modern high-yield agriculture, especially for crops such as corn, depends heavily on timely nitrogen application. If farmers face sustained shortages or sharply higher prices, some will cut usage, and yields will suffer. The result would not be immediate famine, but a slower, broader hit to agricultural production later in the season.

For now, the more likely global outcome is a food-price shock rather than a sudden food-supply shock. If the disruption is brief, inventories, rerouted cargoes, other exporters, and state subsidies may absorb much of the damage. But if the conflict drags on through key planting and input-delivery windows, the war could begin to reduce agricultural output itself, especially in fertilizer-intensive farming systems and in poorer, import-dependent countries least able to pay more for food.

It’s the U.S. vs China, everyone needs to pick a side

Hungary-Ukraine row deepens after Kyiv bank-convoy staff detained in Budapest

A fresh confrontation has opened between Hungary and Ukraine after Kyiv said Hungarian authorities detained seven Ukrainian citizens in Budapest who were carrying out a routine cash-transfer mission for the state-owned Oschadbank. 

According to Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha and Oschadbank, the men were transporting cash and bank metals between Austria and Ukraine in two armored vehicles when they were stopped on Hungarian territory. Ukraine says it does not know the legal basis for the detention, the men’s condition, or whether they have been allowed to contact anyone.

Sybiha described the episode in exceptionally harsh terms, saying Hungary had effectively taken the men “hostage” and accusing Budapest of “state terrorism and racketeering”. Oschadbank said the vehicles were part of regular transfers conducted under international transport and customs procedures, and Ukrainian reporting said the cargo included roughly $40 million, €35 million ($40.6 million), and 9 kilograms (19.8 pounds) of gold. GPS data cited by Oschadbank and reported by multiple outlets indicated that the vehicles were later located in Budapest near a Hungarian law-enforcement or security facility.

Kyiv has sent a diplomatic note demanding the immediate release of the seven employees and says it will ask the European Union to assess the incident. As of the latest reporting, no public Hungarian explanation for the detention had emerged, leaving the legal and political rationale unstated.

The affair comes at a moment of already severe tension between the two governments. Relations have worsened over Hungary’s opposition to EU support for Ukraine, disputes over Russian oil transit through the Druzhba pipeline, and a broader political clash between Prime Minister Viktor Orban and President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. 

Orban had recently threatened to use financial and political pressure over the pipeline dispute, while earlier disputes had included accusations by Budapest against Kyiv over alleged interference and security matters. Against that background, the detention of state-bank personnel and a high-value cash convoy is likely to be seen in Kyiv not as an isolated policing matter, but as part of a broader campaign of coercive pressure.  

The immediate significance is threefold: first, the case inserts a quasi-financial seizure into an already bitter interstate dispute; second, it raises questions about the safety of sensitive state and banking transfers across EU territory; and third, it may force Brussels to confront not only Hungary’s political obstruction over Ukraine, but also an alleged direct action against Ukrainian state personnel and assets.

Whether this turns into an EU-level legal and diplomatic fight will depend largely on whether Hungary now offers a formal justification, produces the detainees, or returns the convoy and its cargo.

Center of Gravity sign up link: https://www.namea-group.com/the-daily-brief