Arnaud Bertrand
Photo
This is probably the most important article of the month: an op-ed by Oman's Foreign Minister, who mediated the talks between the U.S. and Iran, in which he writes that the U.S. "has lost control of its foreign policy" to Israel.
He repeats that a deal was possible as an outcome of the talks (something confirmed by the UK's National Security Advisor, who also attended: x.com/i/status/20341…) and that the military strike by the U.S. and Israel was "a shock."
Interestingly, given he is one of Iran's neighbors and given that Oman has been struck multiple times by Iran since the war began (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_Iran…), he writes that "Iran’s retaliation against what it claims are American targets on the territory of its neighbours was an inevitable result" of the U.S.-Israeli attack. He describes it as "probably the only rational option available to the Iranian leadership."
He says the war "endangers" the region's entire "economic model in which global sport, tourism, aviation and technology were to play an important role." He adds that "if this had not been anticipated by the architects of this war, that was surely a grave miscalculation."
But, he adds, the "greatest miscalculation" of all for the U.S. "was allowing itself to be drawn into this war in the first place."
In his view this was the doing of "Israel’s leadership" who "persuaded America that Iran had been so weakened by sanctions, internal divisions and the American-Israeli bombings of its nuclear sites last June, that an unconditional surrender would swiftly follow the initial assault and the assassination of the supreme leader."
Obviously, this proved completely wrong, and the U.S. is now in a quagmire. He says that, given this, "America’s friends have a responsibility to tell the truth," which is that "there are two parties to this war who have nothing to gain from it," namely "Iran and America."
He says that all of the U.S. interests in the region (end to nuclear proliferation, secure energy supply chains, investment opportunities) are "best achieved with Iran at peace."
As he writes, "this is an uncomfortable truth to tell, because it involves indicating the extent to which America has lost control of its own foreign policy. But it must be told."
He then proposes a couple of paths to get back to the negotiating table, although he recognizes how difficult it would be for Iran "to return to dialogue with an administration that twice switched abruptly from talks to bombing and assassination."
That's perhaps the most profound damage Trump did during this entire episode: the complete discrediting of diplomacy. If Iran was taught anything, it is: don't negotiate with the U.S., it's a trap that will literally kill you.
The great irony of the man who sold himself as a dealmaker is that he taught the world one thing: don't make deals with my country.
Link to the article: economist.com/by-invitation/…
He repeats that a deal was possible as an outcome of the talks (something confirmed by the UK's National Security Advisor, who also attended: x.com/i/status/20341…) and that the military strike by the U.S. and Israel was "a shock."
Interestingly, given he is one of Iran's neighbors and given that Oman has been struck multiple times by Iran since the war began (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_Iran…), he writes that "Iran’s retaliation against what it claims are American targets on the territory of its neighbours was an inevitable result" of the U.S.-Israeli attack. He describes it as "probably the only rational option available to the Iranian leadership."
He says the war "endangers" the region's entire "economic model in which global sport, tourism, aviation and technology were to play an important role." He adds that "if this had not been anticipated by the architects of this war, that was surely a grave miscalculation."
But, he adds, the "greatest miscalculation" of all for the U.S. "was allowing itself to be drawn into this war in the first place."
In his view this was the doing of "Israel’s leadership" who "persuaded America that Iran had been so weakened by sanctions, internal divisions and the American-Israeli bombings of its nuclear sites last June, that an unconditional surrender would swiftly follow the initial assault and the assassination of the supreme leader."
Obviously, this proved completely wrong, and the U.S. is now in a quagmire. He says that, given this, "America’s friends have a responsibility to tell the truth," which is that "there are two parties to this war who have nothing to gain from it," namely "Iran and America."
He says that all of the U.S. interests in the region (end to nuclear proliferation, secure energy supply chains, investment opportunities) are "best achieved with Iran at peace."
As he writes, "this is an uncomfortable truth to tell, because it involves indicating the extent to which America has lost control of its own foreign policy. But it must be told."
He then proposes a couple of paths to get back to the negotiating table, although he recognizes how difficult it would be for Iran "to return to dialogue with an administration that twice switched abruptly from talks to bombing and assassination."
That's perhaps the most profound damage Trump did during this entire episode: the complete discrediting of diplomacy. If Iran was taught anything, it is: don't negotiate with the U.S., it's a trap that will literally kill you.
The great irony of the man who sold himself as a dealmaker is that he taught the world one thing: don't make deals with my country.
Link to the article: economist.com/by-invitation/…
The Economist
By Invitation | The Economist
Our guest writers offer expert commentaries on politics, economics, business and culture
Was discussing tonight with a friend of mine who is in the business of chicken food (as in the food you feed chicken). One of the largest such businesses out there.
Turns out, chickens quite literally eat oil: chicken feed requires methionine, a key amino acid produced with sulfur - itself extracted as a byproduct of oil refinement.
And so, as a direct consequence of the oil shock, there's now apparently major issues in the poultry industry.
Really insane to think about how deep the consequences of Trump's war on Iran go (and how dependent on oil we are): even chickens will go hungry globally because of this, and humans will inevitably follow...
Turns out, chickens quite literally eat oil: chicken feed requires methionine, a key amino acid produced with sulfur - itself extracted as a byproduct of oil refinement.
And so, as a direct consequence of the oil shock, there's now apparently major issues in the poultry industry.
Really insane to think about how deep the consequences of Trump's war on Iran go (and how dependent on oil we are): even chickens will go hungry globally because of this, and humans will inevitably follow...
People often assume - wrongly - that China is completely dependent on imports for oil but nothing could be further from the truth: they actually produce, domestically (!), more oil than Iran AND Venezuela put together.
- China, right now👇: production of 4.8 million b/d
- Iran: ~3.2 million b/d before the war, and even less since (tradingeconomics.com/iran/crude-oil…)
- Venezuela: ~1.1 million b/d as of March 2026 (tradingeconomics.com/venezuela/crud…)
As a matter of fact, with 4.8 million b/d, China is the 5th largest oil producer in the world, bigger than all OPEC countries except Saudi Arabia.
- China, right now👇: production of 4.8 million b/d
- Iran: ~3.2 million b/d before the war, and even less since (tradingeconomics.com/iran/crude-oil…)
- Venezuela: ~1.1 million b/d as of March 2026 (tradingeconomics.com/venezuela/crud…)
As a matter of fact, with 4.8 million b/d, China is the 5th largest oil producer in the world, bigger than all OPEC countries except Saudi Arabia.