Saudi’s growing role in U.S. entertainment

The war between the United States, Israel and Iran is not proving to be a “quick” one. It has already surpassed the previous 12-day war and is now the organising event shaping global politics and markets.

This week’s analysis looks at three questions that increasingly matter.

First, whether the war is beginning to fracture the political coalition that brought Donald Trump back to power.

Second, whether the Islamic Republic (assumed by many to be brittle) is proving far more structurally resilient than expected.

Third, what this escalation means for global energy markets and investors who once believed geopolitical risk could be priced out of oil.

Together, these questions are beginning to define not just the trajectory of the conflict itself, but the broader economic and political landscape surrounding it.

Let’s get into it.

P.S. We published an in-depth report on the Iran war last week based on source inquiries across the region. If you would like a copy, feel free to reply to this email or get in touch.

Is Trump’s war breaking his coalition?

What happened: The decision to strike Iran has begun to fracture the coalition that returned Donald Trump to the White House. Segments of Trump’s base (particularly populist conservatives and anti-interventionists) are increasingly questioning the rationale and scope of the war.

Why it matters: Trump’s political coalition was always an uneasy alliance. It brought together traditional Republicans, nationalist populists, energy hawks and anti-war conservatives who viewed foreign entanglements as strategic mistakes. The Iran escalation exposes the fault lines between those factions. If the conflict expands, that tension could deepen — particularly if the economic costs begin to reach American voters through energy prices or market volatility.

What this means: The war’s political sustainability inside the United States may become as important as its military trajectory. The White House must now balance strategic escalation abroad with coalition management at home. That balancing act is becoming harder as time goes by.

Read the full analysis:

Trump’s ill-planned war is breaking his coalition

The President has walked himself into a new quagmire, but even if he finds a way to extract himself soon, the war will damage his party for the rest of his term.

The Geopolitical DeskThe Geopolitical Desk

Khamenei is dead. The system survives

What happened: The death of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has triggered a leadership transition inside the Islamic Republic. While many thought this moment would be destabilising, it showed how the system Khamenei helped build was designed precisely to survive moments like this.

Why it matters: The Islamic Republic is often portrayed externally as a personalised regime centred around a single leader. In reality, it functions more like a decentralised power structure. Authority is distributed across clerical institutions, security bodies and political factions that operate within a shared ideological framework. That structure has proven its resilience during the latest leadership shock.

What this means: The succession moment does not necessarily weaken the regime. In some ways it may reinforce it. Transitions allow the system to renew itself while preserving the institutional logic that has sustained it for decades. For outside actors betting on regime collapse, that may prove an uncomfortable reality.

Read the full analysis:

Khamenei is dead, long live Khamenei: Iran’s regime after wartime succession

The death of Ali Khamenei was expected to shake the Islamic Republic. Instead, Iran’s wartime succession and the rise of Mojtaba Khamenei reveal a regime that remains cohesive under pressure. National mobilisation, institutional loyalty and war dynamics may reinforce rather than weaken the system.

The Geopolitical DeskThe Geopolitical Desk

Energy dominance meets its limits

What happened: The escalation with Iran has sent Brent Crude over $100 per barrel. With Tehran threatening shipping routes and the Strait of Hormuz under pressure, energy traders are reassessing risks many believed were largely contained. The price of geopolitical risk is returning to oil.

Why it matters: Washington’s “energy dominance” narrative has long suggested the United States could buffer global markets from geopolitical instability, particulary in West Asia. But upstream investors are seeing supply shocks reverberate through global systems. Insurance costs, tanker routes, and investor confidence are all now in play.

What this means: The question is not really about oil prices, even though fluctuations will inevitably impact political apetite for and public reactions to this war. However, what is still unclear is whether the ongoing escalation forces long-term reassessment of geopolitical risk across the energy sector and global supply chains. Investors, governments and companies are beginning to model scenarios that only weeks ago seemed remote.

Read the full analysis:

The limits of U.S. energy independence and the upstream risks of escalation in Iran

U.S. military escalation against Iran is reshaping energy geopolitics and exposing new risks for oil and gas investors across the Middle East. From Iraq and Syria to the Eastern Mediterranean, upstream opportunities created by geopolitics may prove far less stable than they appear.

The Geopolitical DeskThe Geopolitical Desk

🌏 The world beyond the war

Assessing public sentiment is always tricky in Iran, especially now that the internet is down and segments of society stand on opposite sides.

This is why Iran coverage is so polarised. State and semi-official news outlets focus on pro-government rallies or what are often scripted interviews.

On the other side, networks that were central in relaying January protest footage and have access to Starlink or top-of-the-line VPNs push out footage showing people quietly but passionately supporting the air campaign against their rulers, echoing calls by the IDF to amplify opposition voices in Iran.

In the middle of this political show, the overall sentiment is more mixed.

People oscillate between shock and anger toward what they see as an illegal attack, concern over their immediate security and long-term future in Iran, or anxious trepidation toward the possibility of a better tomorrow without the Islamic Republic.

The future is murky. For those desiring change, the mood depends largely on which geopolitical outlook they hold.

Some adopt a uniquely Iranian perspective that carries excessive reverence toward the United States and high hopes for Israel’s motives in seeking an Iranian ally.

Others take a more grounded geopolitical outlook, looking at the U.S. regional imprint since 2001.

Now that the war enters its second week and more civilian infrastructure is struck inside Iran, the population is bound to feel growing fright, anger, and patriotic awakening.

This is exactly the kind of signal that often disappears in the noise of wartime reporting. GPD Intelligence subscribers get insight on these early shifts before they become market-moving headlines.

Try GPD Intelligence free for 7 days or Lock in 50% off annual access through March 15th →

The debate beyond Iran

Outside Iran, there is no serious platform defending the Islamic Republic, which has burnt through much of its soft power since its faulty stance during the Arab Spring, its consecutive repression of domestic protests, and its attachment to an Islamism that is reviled in the West and losing ground in the region.

Although laughed at in right-wing circles and misused by parts of the Left, anti-imperialism remains a central movement shaping Middle Eastern conflicts and motivating hearts and minds.

However, Tehran’s foreign policy missteps have severely weakened its ability to rally such support.

Even when rallies occur, such as in Pakistan, they cannot translate into any geopolitically salient force.

As a result, the Iran debate abroad is split between those who see a golden opportunity to reshape the Middle East, return from exile, or remove an ideological adversary, and those who rightly point to the illegality and heedlessness of the war but struggle to identify a credible short-term path away from the Islamic Republic.

The problem with speaking for “the Iranian People”

Now that another foreign intervention has taken shape, political entrepreneurs increasingly style themselves as the voice of the “Iranian people”.

They draw attention and support despite peddling disinformation, hidden agendas, and a lack of planning.

Revolutionary periods inevitably compress individual voices into sweeping narratives about “the people”.

But Iran, like any society, is deeply diverse.

Reducing it to a binary struggle risks falling into the same Manichean logic that has shaped so much Western interpretation of the region. Ironically, that worldview may be Ancient Iran’s most enduring export.

Here are some recent Intelligence-only articles:

Iran’s escalation scenarios: how the war could disrupt oil, shipping and global aviation

The war on Iran is entering a dangerous phase. From disruption in the Strait of Hormuz to potential attacks on Gulf energy infrastructure and aviation hubs, several scenarios could shake global oil markets, shipping routes and regional security across West Asia.

The Geopolitical DeskThe Geopolitical Desk

Why escalation may be Iran’s only working strategy

While the U.S. and Israel have a dizzying array of strategic goals, ranging from Iran’s military weakening, change within the regime and regime change, Iran simultaneously follows two broad approaches which aim at forcing the U.S. to throw in the towel and allowing the Islamic Republic to survive.

The Geopolitical DeskThe Geopolitical Desk

Who rules Iran after Khamenei? Succession scenarios explained

From IRGC hardliners to clerical conservatives and pragmatic insiders, this analysis maps the key figures, power blocs and scenarios shaping Iran’s future and regional stability.

The Geopolitical DeskThe Geopolitical Desk

Thin diplomacy, heavy firepower: U.S-Iran at a breakingpoint

Little progress, large egos, and military buildups are hurtling the U.S.-Iran crisis toward potential confrontation.

The Geopolitical DeskThe Geopolitical Desk

The multiple murky paths of U.S.-Iran tensions

An American flotilla is nearing Iran as the country recovers from a violent state crackdown on mass protests. The U.S. task force’s goals remain unclear, driving tensions in southwest Asia.

The Geopolitical DeskThe Geopolitical Desk

This week’s coverage focuses on the widening war around Iran and the second-order shocks beginning to ripple across the region.

What began as targeted strikes has quickly evolved into a conflict with implications for global energy markets, shipping routes, regional militant networks and the internal stability of the Islamic Republic itself.

Let's get into it.

How the Iran war could disrupt oil, shipping and global aviation

What happened: Military escalation between Iran, Israel and the U.S. has pushed the region toward scenarios that could directly affect global aviation routes, maritime traffic and energy infrastructure across the Gulf.

Why it matters: Iran’s strongest leverage does not lie in conventional military victory but in its ability to disrupt global markets. Even limited interference with shipping or aviation corridors could send shockwaves through energy prices and insurance markets.

What it means: The escalation ladder still has multiple rungs. Disruption of shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, targeting of Gulf infrastructure, or wider proxy involvement remain plausible pathways if Tehran seeks to regain deterrence.

Subscriber insight: This briefing maps the specific escalation triggers that could push oil above $100 and disrupt Gulf aviation corridors.

Iran’s escalation scenarios: how the war could disrupt oil, shipping and global aviation

The war on Iran is entering a dangerous phase. From disruption in the Strait of Hormuz to potential attacks on Gulf energy infrastructure and aviation hubs, several scenarios could shake global oil markets, shipping routes and regional security across West Asia.

The Geopolitical DeskThe Geopolitical Desk

Why escalation may be Iran’s only working strategy

What happened: As the conflict deepens, Tehran faces a strategic dilemma: accepting a ceasefire risks exposing weakness, while escalation offers a way to impose costs on its adversaries.

Why it matters: Iran cannot match Israel and the United States militarily. Its most effective strategy may instead be to make the conflict economically and politically unsustainable for its opponents.

What it means: Expect Tehran to rely increasingly on asymmetric tools. Market disruption, proxy pressure and calibrated regional escalation could become the core pillars of its strategy.

Why escalation may be Iran’s only working strategy

While the U.S. and Israel have a dizzying array of strategic goals, ranging from Iran’s military weakening, change within the regime and regime change, Iran simultaneously follows two broad approaches which aim at forcing the U.S. to throw in the towel and allowing the Islamic Republic to survive.

The Geopolitical DeskThe Geopolitical Desk

Modern warfare in Tehran: is the air campaign working?

What happened: Israel’s air campaign over Iran has expanded significantly, targeting infrastructure and strategic sites across Tehran and other key areas.

Why it matters: Airpower can degrade military capabilities but rarely determines political outcomes on its own. The effectiveness of the campaign depends on whether it can disrupt Iran’s command structures and war-making capacity.

What it means: If the campaign fails to generate decisive effects, pressure may grow for broader escalation, potentially involving expanded regional operations or deeper U.S. involvement.

Modern warfare in Tehran: is the air campaign working?

U.S. and Israeli strikes are degrading Iran’s missile launchers and military infrastructure, but intelligence gaps, rising civilian casualties and uncertain missile stockpiles raise questions about how durable the campaign’s gains will be.

The Geopolitical DeskThe Geopolitical Desk

Who rules Iran after Khamenei? Succession scenarios explained

What happened: The war has revived a long-standing question within Iran’s political system: who will succeed Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei.

Why it matters: The identity and alignment of Khamenei’s successor will shape Iran’s ideological direction, institutional balance and willingness to confront external pressure.

What it means: Elite factional competition could intensify if the conflict weakens the current leadership structure, creating uncertainty about the future trajectory of the Islamic Republic.

Who rules Iran after Khamenei? Succession scenarios explained

From IRGC hardliners to clerical conservatives and pragmatic insiders, this analysis maps the key figures, power blocs and scenarios shaping Iran’s future and regional stability.

The Geopolitical DeskThe Geopolitical Desk

Will new regional instability give rise to ISIS?

What happened: Rising instability across West Asia is prompting renewed concern about whether extremist armed groups could exploit the current crisis to regroup.

Why it matters: Periods of regional upheaval have historically created opportunities for militant organisations to rebuild networks and expand recruitment.

What it means: If security vacuums deepen in key theatres such as Iraq and Syria, the conditions that previously enabled ISIS’s resurgence could begin to re-emerge.

Will new regional instability give rise to ISIS?

Drone activity, jihadist fractures and regional escalation are all creating a hostile environment that could see the rebirth of ISIS.

The Geopolitical DeskThe Geopolitical Desk

Is the Libyan National Army drifting westwards?

What happened: Recent political signals suggest Khalifa Haftar’s Libyan National Army may be adjusting its posture.

Why it matters: A shift in Haftar’s strategy could alter the fragile balance between eastern and western power centres and reshape ongoing negotiations over Libya’s political future.

What it means: If confirmed, this recalibration could reopen political space for new alliances, negotiations and potential institutional restructuring.

Is the Libyan National Army drifting westwards?

Just two years ago, the Libyan National Army (LNA) was widely treated as an international pariah. Western capitals explored ways to weaken it and diplomatic engagement was limited. Today, that picture looks increasingly outdated.

The Geopolitical DeskThe Geopolitical Desk

Trump envoy pushes to strip elections from UN Libya communiqué

What happened: Diplomatic negotiations around Libya’s political roadmap have intensified, with a U.S. envoy reportedly pushing to remove elections from a UN communiqué.

Over the past week, the risk environment in the Middle East has rapidly shifted to the most acute storyline we outlined in our recent scenario planning, with a massive military campaign against Iran. 

The February 28 attack against Iran quickly morphed into a regional war, with the Gulf’s global aviation hubs facing paralysis, marine traffic disrupted across the Persian Gulf, and energy infrastructure sustaining limited damage that could be the harbinger of a global crisis. 

While Iranian missile launches have drastically decreased in quantity, a lot more risk aggravation is to be expected as the region digs deeper into its worst-case scenario. 

In recent client briefings we have been tracking three signals in particular.

First: The Islamic Republic stabilising or faltering

Iran’s governance is not upset by decapitation strikes, at least in the short-term.

Wartime protests are increasingly unlikely and, as the conflict persists, the natural political course is to give way to a barracks state where stabilisation equals a return to the Islamic Republic’s radical fundamentals.

Who is appointed as Ali Khamenei’s successor will highlight whether this is the path agreed upon by elite factions, in which case more decapitation strikes are to be expected which could tip the balance toward partial state collapse, with large-scale regional consequences. 

Second: escalation thresholds in the U.S.–Israel confrontation with Iran

Tehran knows that a ceasefire now will highlight its weakness and forego any chance of medium-term stability by inviting future strikes.

Israel wants to diminish the Iranian state apparatus as much as possible while the U.S. still assesses its best course of action, which increasingly points to a prolonged campaign.

Iran’s strategic drift and Israel’s unfinished war

While the regional landscape remains volatile, this report outlines several pragmatic recommendations that could help Iran navigate its way out of the current quagmire through diplomatic recalibration, strategic restraint, and internal realignment.

The Geopolitical DeskThe Geopolitical Desk

None of these trends benefit diplomacy, and could lead to scenarios deemed impossible early-on such as the deployment of elite U.S. troop contingents to take over parts of Iran’s port infrastructure or support local insurgents in border areas. 

Third: the strategic vulnerability of the Strait of Hormuz

Iran’s first steps this week, which include Strait of Hormuz partial closure and limited targeting of Gulf energy infrastructure, have not exhausted its escalation playbook.

Tehran has for now only held back because its own energy infrastructure has been left untouched, but the worse the war goes for it the less restraint it will likely show.

This is especially true if time alone does not guarantee Tehran a market upheaval including oil barrels above $100 or a cessation of hostilities on terms that can prevent a future deflagration.

The entry of Yemen’s Houthis into the war is one of Tehran’s remaining wild cards to cut short alternative tradeways for top Gulf commodities. 

These dynamics do not exist in isolation.

Leadership succession, military escalation, shipping security, regional proxy networks and even partial state collapse are all part of the same downward spiral facing not only the Middle East but the world economy.

The problem is that most professionals encounter these radical developments only after they become headlines.

By that point markets are forced to scramble in response to a situation it had not fully anticipated.

GPD Intelligence exists to surface these signals earlier.

Subscribers receive structured briefings designed for professionals working across energy, finance, diplomacy, security and trade.

Each briefing focuses on:

• scenario logic rather than headline summaries
• early warning indicators worth tracking
• source-led reporting from inside the region
• analysis you can share internally without rewriting

A single misjudged escalation signal can move shipping routes, insurance costs, oil prices and regional political risk overnight.

For readers of our free briefings we are currently offering a limited promotion.

If you're curious, here are some recent Intelligence-only articles:

Who rules Iran after Khamenei? Succession scenarios explained

From IRGC hardliners to clerical conservatives and pragmatic insiders, this analysis maps the key figures, power blocs and scenarios shaping Iran’s future and regional stability.

The Geopolitical DeskThe Geopolitical Desk

Thin diplomacy, heavy firepower: U.S-Iran at a breakingpoint

Little progress, large egos, and military buildups are hurtling the U.S.-Iran crisis toward potential confrontation.

The Geopolitical DeskThe Geopolitical Desk

The multiple murky paths of U.S.-Iran tensions

An American flotilla is nearing Iran as the country recovers from a violent state crackdown on mass protests. The U.S. task force’s goals remain unclear, driving tensions in southwest Asia.

The Geopolitical DeskThe Geopolitical Desk

Iran’s protests and the missing pieces of the puzzle

The recent protests in Iran have been some of the largest in years, yet gaps in their strategy will prevent them from breaking the regime.

The Geopolitical DeskThe Geopolitical Desk

The conflict between Israel, the United States and Iran may be edging toward a worst-case escalation.

Strikes reportedly reaching as far as Kuwait International Airport and the Palm in Dubai, allegedly via drones, mark an unprecedented widening of the operational theatre.

Whether these incidents reflect a mismanaged Iranian response or a deliberate effort to extend pressure beyond U.S. military assets into the wider Gulf arena remains unclear.

Either interpretation carries risk. Expanding the battlefield geographically increases the probability of miscalculation and unintended retaliation.

Some accounts suggest hotels were targeted because military personnel had been temporarily rebased there. Even if accurate, striking such sites would represent a significant escalation.

Civilian-adjacent targets, particularly in Gulf commercial hubs, are politically explosive and likely to invite broader retaliation and international backlash.

At the same time, warnings tied to potential disruption in the Strait of Hormuz are already affecting maritime traffic.

Commercial vessels are receiving alerts and are expected to comply. In this environment, perception alone can move markets and alter military calculations.

The mere suggestion of a closure or partial disruption of Hormuz introduces volatility into energy pricing and shipping insurance premiums. Energy security has now moved to the centre of the battlefield.

We previously outlined the possible escalation pathways, mapping both short, high-intensity strike cycles and drawn-out regional war scenarios.

The current trajectory suggests that what began as calibrated force signalling risks mutating into a broader economic and geographic confrontation.

Shock without state collapse

The confirmation of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s death is historic. It is not, however, synonymous with state collapse.

The Islamic Republic moved quickly to prevent any perception of a vacuum.

A temporary leadership council has been formed, composed of the president, the chief justice and a senior jurist, all long regarded as loyal to Khamenei. They will oversee responsibilities until the Assembly of Experts selects a new Supreme Leader.

The speed of the transition signals prior contingency planning.