What they're not telling you: # Rabobank: "More War Seems Inevitable" Rabobank analyst Michael Every has concluded that escalating military conflict with Iran appears unavoidable absent a dramatic U.S. policy reversal, signaling potential disruption to global energy markets that mainstream financial outlets have yet to fully price in. The assessment follows President Trump's rejection of Iran's response to his peace proposal as "totally unacceptable." According to Rabobank's analysis, the gap between negotiating positions is stark: the U.S.
# THE TAKE: Why Rabobank's War Forecast Serves Power Michael Every's "inevitability" framing is predictable corporate stenography. Rabobank doesn't predict war—it *prices* war. There's a difference. When a major financial institution declares conflict "inevitable," they're not prophesying. They're manufacturing consent while positioning clients to profit. Futures markets spike. Defense contractors rally. Commodity hedges become essential. The bank captures fees across every escalation scenario. Trump's theatrical "TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE" performatively responds to Iran while the actual machinery—weapons contracts, sanctions architecture, intelligence leaks—grinds forward regardless of rhetoric. The con: Frame geopolitical collapse as unavoidable physics rather than policy choice. Makes aggression seem rational, even prudent. Rabobank's real message: *Stop asking if we can prevent this. Start asking how to profit from it.* That's not analysis. It's capture.
What the Documents Show
demands Iran surrender enriched uranium, abandon nuclear weapons development, reopen the Strait of Hormuz, and cease ballistic missile advancement and support for regional proxies. Iran's counteroffer is categorical—it insists the U.S. must instead withdraw permanently from the region, provide reparations, and cede control of the Strait of Hormuz. This fundamental incompatibility suggests that absent a major strategic shift, increased military action targeting either Iranian regime hardening or direct control of critical chokepoints becomes the logical next step. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu's recent 60 Minutes interview provides reinforcement for this trajectory.
Follow the Money
Rather than declaring victory in existing operations, Netanyahu explicitly stated the Iran war, "while having achieved a lot, is 'not over.'" This language from a key regional actor aligns with Rabobank's darker forecast and undercuts any narrative of de-escalation. The timing of potential new military action, however, appears constrained by three practical factors: markets' need for stability in the near term, incomplete U.S. military readiness for sustained operations, and the scheduled May 13-15 Trump-Xi summit in Beijing—where Iran negotiations will reportedly feature prominently alongside broader U.S.-China relations. What mainstream analysis often overlooks is the critical role Beijing may play in any resolution. Both China and Russia maintain significant leverage over Iran through military supply chains. Rabobank notes that Beijing faces a strategic choice: continue supporting Iran as Russia has supported Ukraine, or use its influence to pressure Tehran toward negotiation if prolonged conflict threatens to destabilize global energy markets beyond an economic "tipping point." This dynamic suggests that U.S.-Iran conflict resolution may ultimately be negotiated not directly between Washington and Tehran, but through great power diplomacy involving Beijing and Moscow.
What Else We Know
The mention of a potential "Grand Bargain" among the core interests of China, the U.S., and Russia introduces yet another variable absent from conventional Western policy debate. Putin's recent description of the Ukraine war as "coming to an end," paired with a notably diminished Victory Day parade, hints at possible Russian flexibility on multiple fronts. If these geopolitical dominoes begin to shift simultaneously—Ukraine, Iran, and U.S.-China relations—the ordinary implications are severe and immediate. For average people, this convergence means energy price volatility will likely intensify before any settlement emerges. The Strait of Hormuz carries roughly one-third of globally traded oil; disruption there transmits directly to gas prices, inflation, and cost-of-living pressures. Markets currently discount the probability of sustained conflict too lightly, suggesting a sharp correction downward is probable once military action resumes.
Primary Sources
- Source: ZeroHedge
- Category: Money & Markets
- Cross-reference independently — don't take our word for it.
Disclosure: NewsAnarchist aggregates from public records, API feeds (Federal Register, CourtListener, MuckRock, Hacker News), and independent media. AI-assisted synthesis. Always verify primary sources linked above.