Middle East

Executive Summary Turkey is staring into an abyss: economic crisis that will morph into political crisis in the June 2023 election cycle. President Erdoğan will pursue populist economic policies and foreign policy adventurism to try to stay in power, leading to negative surprises and “black swan” risks over the coming 9-12 months. While Erdoğan and the ruling party are likely to be defeated in elections, which is good news, investors should not try to front-run the election given high uncertainty. Neither Turkey’s economy and domestic politics nor the global economy and geopolitics warrant a bullish view on Turkish assets. GEOPOLITICAL STRATEGY  Recommendation (TACTICAL) Initiation Date Return LONG JPY/TRY 2022-09-23     Erdoğan’s Net Negative Job Approval Turkey: Before And After Erdoğan Turkey: Before And After Erdoğan Bottom Line: The Lira will depreciate further versus the dollar. Both Turkish stocks and local currency bonds merit an underweight stance in an EM basket. EM sovereign credit investors, however, should be neutral on Turkish sovereign credit relative to the EM sovereign credit benchmark. Feature Turkey – now technically Türkiye – is teetering on the verge of a national meltdown. The inflation rate is the fastest in G20 countries, both because of a domestic wage-price spiral and soaring global food and fuel prices. President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and his Justice and Development Party (AKP) have been in power since 2002, making them highly vulnerable to demands for change in the general election slated for June 18, 2023. Yet Erdoğan is a strongman who won a popular vote to revise the constitution in 2017 and increase his personal power over institutions. His populist Islamist movement is starkly at odds with the country’s traditional elite, including the secular military establishment. Given the poor state of the economy, Erdoğan will likely lose the 2023 election but he could refuse to leave office … or he could win the election and be ousted in a coup d'état, as happened in Turkey in 1960, 1971, and 1980.1 Meanwhile Turkey is beset by foreign dangers – including war in Ukraine and instability in the Middle East. Erdoğan will try to use foreign policy to bolster his popular standing. Turkey has inserted itself in various regional conflicts and could instigate conflicts of its own. While global investors are eager to buy steeply discounted Turkish financial assets ahead of what could be a monumental change in national policy in 2023, the country is extremely unstable. It is a source of “black swan” risks. The best bet is to remain underweight Turkish assets unless and until a pro-market election outcome shakes off the two-decade trend toward economic ruin. Turkish Grand Strategy Turkey is permanently at a crossroads. The land-bridge between Europe and Asia, it is secular and cosmopolitan but also Islamist and traditional. Its past consists of the greatness of empires – Byzantine, Ottoman – while its present consists of a frustrating search for new opportunities in a chaotic regional context. The core of the country consists of the disjointed coastal plains around the Bosporus and Dardanelles straits and the Sea of Marmara, where Istanbul is located. The Byzantine and Ottoman empires were seated on this strategic location at the juncture of the world’s east-west trade. To secure this area, the Turks needed to control the larger Anatolian peninsula – Asia Minor – to prevent roving Eurasian powers from invading, just as they themselves had originally invaded from Central Asia. During times of greatness the Turks could also expand their empire to control the Balkan peninsula and Danube river valley up to Vienna, Crimea and the Black Sea coasts, and the eastern Mediterranean island approaches. During the Ottoman empire’s golden days Turkish power extended all the way into North Africa, Mesopotamia, the Nile river valley, and Mecca and Medina. The empire – and the Islamic Ottoman Caliphate – collapsed in 1924 after centuries of erosion and the catastrophes of World War I. Subsequently Turkey emerged as a secular republic. It adapted to the post-WWII world order by allying with the United States and NATO, in conflict with the Soviet Union which encircled the Turks on all sides. The Russians are longstanding rivals of Turkey, notably in the Black Sea and Crimea, and Stalin wanted to get his hands on the Dardanelles and Bosporus straits. Hence alliance with the US and NATO fulfilled one of the primary demands of Turkish grand strategy: a navy that could defend the straits and Turkish interests in the Black Sea and eastern Mediterranean. The collapse of the Soviet Union seemed to usher in an era of opportunity for Turkey. Turkey benefited from democratization, globalization, and foreign capital inflows. But then America’s wars and crises, Russia’s resurgence, and Middle Eastern instability created a shatter-belt surrounding Turkey, impinging on its national security. In this context of limited foreign policy options, Turkey’s domestic politics coalesced around Erdoğan, the AKP, political Islam, and investment-driven economic growth. Erdoğan and the AKP represent the Anatolian, religious, and Middle Eastern interests in Turkey, as opposed to the maritime, secular, and Euro-centric interests rooted in Istanbul. This point can be illustrated by observing that the poorer interior regions have grown faster than the national average over the period of AKP rule, whereas the more developed coastal regions have tended to lag (Map 1). Voting patterns from the 2018 general election overlap with these economic outcomes. The AKP has steered investment capital into the interior to fund infrastructure and property construction while currency depreciation, rather than productivity enhancement, has merely maintained the status quo with the manufacturing export sector in the coastal regions (Chart 1). Map 1Turkey’s Anatolian Model And The Struggle With The Coasts Turkey: Before And After Erdoğan Turkey: Before And After Erdoğan Chart 1Turkey's Export Competitiveness Turkey's Export Competitiveness Turkey's Export Competitiveness Today Turkey faces three distinct obstacles to its geopolitical expansion: Russian aggression: Russia’s resurgence, especially with the seizure of Crimea in 2014 and broader invasion of Ukraine in 2022, threatens Turkey’s interests in the Black Sea and eastern Mediterranean. Turkey must always deal with Russia carefully but over the past 14 years Russia has become belligerent, forcing Turkey to come to terms with Putin while maintaining the NATO alliance. Today Erdoğan tries to mediate the conflict as it does not want to encourage Russian aggression but also does not want NATO to provoke Russia. For instance, Turkey is willing to condone Finland and Sweden joining NATO but only if the West grants substantial benefits to Turkey itself. Ultimately Turkish ties with Russia are overrated. For both economic reasons and grand strategic reasons outlined above, Turkey will cleave to the West (Chart 2). Chart 2Turkey Still Linked To The West Turkey: Before And After Erdoğan Turkey: Before And After Erdoğan ​​​​​ Chart 3Turkish Energy Ties With Russia Turkey: Before And After Erdoğan Turkey: Before And After Erdoğan Western liberal hegemony: The EU and NATO foreclosed any Turkish ambitions in Europe. The EU has consolidated with each new crisis while rejecting Turkish membership. This puts limits on Turkish access to European markets and influence in the Balkans. Turkey has guarded its independence jealously against the West. After the Cold War the US expected Turkey to serve American interests in the Middle East and Eurasia. The EU expected it to serve European interests as an energy transit state and a blockade against Middle Eastern refugees. But Turkish interests were often sidelined while its domestic politics did not allow blind loyalty to the West. This led Turkey to push back against the West and cultivate other options, such as deeper economic ties with Russia and China. Turkish dependency on Russian energy is substantial and Turkey has tried to play a mediating role in Russia’s conflict with NATO (Chart 3). Recently Turkey offered to join the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), a military alliance of Asian powers. However, as with trade, Turkish defense and security ties with the Russo-Chinese bloc are ultimately overrated (Chart 4).  There is room for some cooperation but Turkey is not eager to abandon American military backing in a period in which Russia is threatening to control the Black Sea rim, cut off grain exports arbitrarily, and use tactical nuclear weapons. Chart 4Turkey’s Defense Alliance With The West Turkey: Before And After Erdoğan Turkey: Before And After Erdoğan Middle Eastern instability: The Middle East is a potential area for Turkey to increase influence, especially given the AKP’s embrace of political Islam. Turkey benefits from regional economic development and maintains relations with all players. But the region’s development is halting and Turkey is blocked by competitors. The US toppled Iraq in 2003, which strengthened Iran’s regional clout over the subsequent decades. But Iran is not stable and the US has not prevented Iran from achieving nuclear breakout capacity. Turkey cannot abide a nuclear-armed Iran. At the same time, the US continues to support Israel and the Gulf Arab monarchies, which oppose Turkey’s combination of Islam and democratic populism. Russia propped up Syria’s regime in league with Iran, which threatens Turkey’s border integrity. Developments in Syria, Iraq, and Iran have all complicated Turkey’s management of Kurdish militancy and separatism. Kurds make up nearly 20% of Turkey’s population and play a central role in the country’s political divisions. Erdoğan’s Anatolian power base is antagonistic toward the Kurds and regional Kurdish aspirations. China’s strategic rise brings both risks and rewards for Turkey but China is too distant to become the focus of Turkish strategy: China’s dream of reviving the Silk Road across Eurasia harkens back to the glory days of Ottoman power. The Belt and Road Initiative and other investments help to develop Central Asia and the Middle East, enabling Turkey to benefit once again as the middleman in east-west trade (Chart 5). Chart 5Turkey Benefits From East-West Trade Turkey Benefits From East-West Trade Turkey Benefits From East-West Trade But insofar as China’s Eurasian strategy is successful, it could someday impinge on Turkish ambitions, particularly by buttressing Russian and Iranian power. In recent years Erdoğan has experimented with projecting Turkish power in the Middle East (Syria), North Africa (Libya), the Caucasus (Armenia), and the eastern Mediterranean (Cyprus). He cannot project power effectively because of the obstacles outlined above. But he can manipulate domestic and foreign security issues to try to prolong his hold on power. Bottom Line: Boxed in by Russian aggression, western liberal hegemony, and Middle Eastern instability, Turkey cannot achieve its geopolitical ambitions and has concentrated on internal development over the past two decades. However, the country retains some imperial ambitions and these periodically flare up in unpredictable ways as the modern Turkish state attempts to fend off the chaotic forces that loom in the Black Sea, Middle East, North Africa, and Caucasus. The Erdoğan regime is focused on consolidating Anatolian control of Turkey and projecting military power abroad so that the military does not become a political problem for his faction at home. Erdoğan’s Domestic Predicament President Erdoğan has stayed in power for 20 years under the conditions outlined above but he faces a critical election by June 18, 2023 that could see him thrown from power. The result will be extreme political turbulence over the coming nine months until the leadership of the country is settled by hook or by crook. Erdoğan has pursued a strongman or authoritarian leadership style, especially since domestic opposition emerged in the wake of the Great Recession. By firing three central bankers, he has pressured the central bank into running an ultra-dovish monetary policy, producing a 12% inflation rate prior to the Covid-19 pandemic and an 80% inflation rate today. He has also embraced populist fiscal handouts and foreign policy adventurism. Taken together his policies have eroded the country’s political as well as economic stability. From the last general election in 2018 to the latest data in 2022: Real household disposable income  growth has fallen from -7.4% to -18.7% (Chart 6). Chart 6Real Incomes Falling Real Incomes Falling Real Incomes Falling ​​​​​​ Chart 7Turkish Activity Slows Ahead Of Election Turkish Activity Slows Ahead Of Election Turkish Activity Slows Ahead Of Election ​​​​​ The manufacturing PMI has fallen from 49.0 to 47.4 (Chart 7). Consumer confidence has fallen from 92.1 to 72.2 (Chart 8). Chart 8Consumer Confidence: Not Better Off Than At Last Election Consumer Confidence: Not Better Off Than At Last Election Consumer Confidence: Not Better Off Than At Last Election ​​​​​​ Chart 9Erdoğan’s Net Negative Job Approval Turkey: Before And After Erdoğan Turkey: Before And After Erdoğan ​​​​​​ Bad economic news is finally altering public opinion, with polls now shifting against the president and incumbent party: Since the pandemic erupted, Erdoğan’s approval rating has fallen from a peak of 57% to 40% today. Disapproval has Erdoğan’s risen to 54%, leaving him a net negative job approval (Chart 9). Bear in mind that Erdoğan won the election with 52.6% of the vote in 2018, only slightly better than the 51.8% he received in 2014 and well below the 80% that his AKP predecessor received in 2007. Meanwhile the AKP, which never performs as well as Erdoğan himself, has fallen from a 45% support rate to 30% today in parliamentary polls, dead even with the main opposition Republican People’s Party (Chart 10). The AKP won 42.6% of the vote in 2018, down from 49.5% in the second election of 2015, 49.8% in 2011, and 46.6% in 2007. Chart 10Justice And Development Party Neck And Neck With Republican Opposition Turkey: Before And After Erdoğan Turkey: Before And After Erdoğan The gap between Erdoğan and his Republican rivals has narrowed sharply since the global food and fuel price spike began to bite in late 2021 (Chart 11). Chart 11Erdoğan Faces Tough Re-Election Race Turkey: Before And After Erdoğan Turkey: Before And After Erdoğan However, the 2023 election is not straightforward. There are several caveats to the clear anti-incumbent tendency of economic and political data: Soft Economic Landing? The election takes place in nine months, enough time for surprises to salvage Erdoğan’s presidential campaign, given his and his party’s heavily entrenched rule. For example, it is possible – not probable – that Russia will resume energy exports, enabling Europe to recover, and that central banks will achieve a “soft landing” for the global economy. Turkey’s economy would bounce just in time to help the incumbent party. This is not what we expect (see below) but it could happen. Foreign Policy Victories? Erdoğan could achieve some foreign policy victories. He has negotiated a tenuous deal with Russia and Ukraine, along with the UN, to enable grain exports out of Odessa. He could build on this process to negotiate a broader ceasefire in Ukraine. He could also win major concessions from the US and NATO to secure Finnish and Swedish membership in that bloc. If he did he would come off looking like a grand statesman and might just buy another term in office. Unfortunately what is more likely is that Erdoğan will pursue an aggressive foreign policy in an attempt to distract voters from their bread-and-butter woes, only to destabilize Turkey and the region further. Stolen Election? Erdoğan revised the constitution in 2017 – winning 51.4% of the votes in a popular referendum – to give the presidency substantial new powers across the political system. Using these powers he could manipulate the election to produce a favorable outcome or even cling to power despite unfavorable election results. He does not face nearly as powerful and motivated of a liberal establishment as President Trump faced in 2020 or as Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro faces in 2022. As noted Erdoğan has a contentious relationship with the Turkish military, so while investors cannot rule out a stolen election, they also cannot rule out a military coup in reaction to an attempted stolen election. Thus the election could produce roughly four outcomes, which we rank below from best to worst in terms of their favorability for global investors: 1.  Best Case: Decisive Opposition Victory – 25% Odds – A resounding electoral defeat for the AKP would reverse its unorthodox economic policies in the short term and serve as a lasting warning to future politicians that populism and economic mismanagement lead to political ruin. This outcome would also provide the political capital and parliamentary strength necessary to impose tough reforms and restore a semblance of macroeconomic stability. 2.  Good Case: Narrow AKP Defeat – 50% Odds – A narrow or contested election would produce a weak new government that would at least put a stop to the most inflationary AKP policies. It would improve global investor sentiment around Turkey’s eventual ability to stabilize its economy. The new government would lack the ability to push through structural reforms but it could at least straighten out the affairs of the central bank so as to ensure a cycle of monetary policy tightening, which would stabilize the currency. 3.  Bad Case: Narrow AKP Victory – 15% Odds – A narrow victory would force the AKP to compromise with opposition parties in parliament and pacify social unrest. Foreign adventurism would continue but harmful domestic policies would face obstructionism. 4.  Worst Case: Decisive AKP Victory – 10% Odds – A resounding victory for the ruling party would vindicate Erdoğan and his policies despite their negative economic results, driving Turkey further down the path of authoritarianism, populism, money printing, currency depreciation, and hyper-inflation. He could also be emboldened in his foreign adventurism. Bottom Line: We expect Erdoğan and the AKP to be defeated and replaced. However, Turkey is in the midst of an economic and political crisis and the next 12 months will bring extreme uncertainty. The election could be indecisive, contested, stolen, or overthrown. The aftermath could be chaotic as well as the lead-up. If the AKP stays in power then investors will abandon Turkey and its economy will suffer a historic shock. Therefore investors should underweight Turkey – at least until the next phase in the economic downturn confirms our forecast that the AKP will fall from power. Macro Outlook: Fade The Equity Rally Chart 12Turkish Stock Rally Will Fade Soon; Stay Underweight This Market Versus EM Turkish Stock Rally Will Fade Soon; Stay Underweight This Market Versus EM Turkish Stock Rally Will Fade Soon; Stay Underweight This Market Versus EM The Turkish economy is beset by hyper-inflation. Headline consumer prices are rising at upwards of 80% and core inflation is 65%. Yet Turkish government 10-year bond yields are low and falling: they are down to 11% currently, from a high of 24% at the beginning of the year. Turkish stocks have also outperformed their Emerging Markets counterparts this year in common currency terms even though the lira has been the worst performing EM currency (Chart 12). So, what’s going on in this market? The answer is hidden in the slew of unorthodox policies adopted by the authorities. These measures caused massive distortions in both the economy and the markets. Specifically, late last year, despite very high inflation, the central bank began to cut policy rates encouraging massive loan expansion. As a result, both local currency loans and money supply surged. Which, in turn, completely unhinged inflation (Chart 13). As inflation rose, so did government bond yields. In a bid to keep government borrowing costs low, policymakers changed several bank regulations to force commercial banks to buy government bonds.2  The upshot was that the bond yields stopped tracking inflation and instead began to fall even as inflation skyrocketed. The rampant inflation meant Turkish non-financial firms’ nominal sales skyrocketed. Indeed, sales of all MSCI Turkey non-financials companies have risen by 40% in US dollar terms and 200% in local currency (Chart 14). Chart 13Massive Bank Credit And Money Growth Completely Unhinged The Inflation Massive Bank Credit And Money Growth Completely Unhinged The Inflation Massive Bank Credit And Money Growth Completely Unhinged The Inflation This was at a time when policy rates were being cut. The policy rate has fallen to 12% today from 19% a year earlier. Firms’ local currency real borrowing costs have fallen deeply into negative territory (Chart 15). It helped reduce firms’ costs significantly. Chart 14Surging Sales Amid Deeply Negative Real Borrowing Costs Boosted Firms' Profits Surging Sales Amid Deeply Negative Real Borrowing Costs Boosted Firms' Profits Surging Sales Amid Deeply Negative Real Borrowing Costs Boosted Firms' Profits ​​​​​ Chart 15Policy Rates Are Being Cut Even As The Inflation Reigns Havoc Policy Rates Are Being Cut Even As The Inflation Reigns Havoc Policy Rates Are Being Cut Even As The Inflation Reigns Havoc ​​​​​ Chart 16Wage Costs Have Risen Too, But Not As Much As Inflation Wage Costs Have Risen Too, But Not As Much As Inflation Wage Costs Have Risen Too, But Not As Much As Inflation ​​​​​ Meanwhile, even though wage growth accelerated, it still fell short of inflation, and therefore of nominal sales of the firms (Chart 16). Firms’ wage costs did not rise as much as their prices. All this boosted non-financial firms’ margins. Total profits have risen by 35% in US dollar terms from a year earlier (200% in lira terms). ​​​​​​​ Chart 17The Deluge Of Money Has Led All Kinds Of Asset Prices To Skyrocket The Deluge Of Money Has Led All Kinds Of Asset Prices To Skyrocket The Deluge Of Money Has Led All Kinds Of Asset Prices To Skyrocket ​​​​​​​ On their part, listed financials’ profits have surged by 50% in USD terms and 220% in local currency terms. They benefited both from surging interest income due to rapid loan growth and from massive capital gains on their holding of government securities (see Chart 14 above). All this is reflected in Turkish companies’ earnings per share as well. The spike in EPS has propped up Turkish stocks for past few months. Over the past year, not only have corporate profits and share prices surged, but also house prices have skyrocketed by 170% in local currency terms and 30% in USD terms (Chart 17). In sum, the abnormally low nominal and deeply negative real borrowing costs have produced a money/credit deluge, which has generated a massive inflationary outbreak and has inflated revenues/profits as well as various asset prices. The Lira To Depreciate Further This macro setting is a recipe for a major currency sell-off.  First, Europe – the destination of 90% of Turkish exports – will likely slide into recession over the coming year (Chart 18).  Chart 18A Slowing Europe Will Materially Dent Turkish Growth Too A Slowing Europe Will Materially Dent Turkish Growth Too A Slowing Europe Will Materially Dent Turkish Growth Too A fall in exports will widen Turkey’s current account deficit. Notably, imports will not fall much since the authorities are pursuing easy money policy. Second, the lack of credible macro policies as well as political crisis will assure that foreign capital escapes Turkey. Turkey will find the current account deficit nearly impossible to finance. Third, the country’s net foreign reserves, after adjusting for the central bank’s foreign currency borrowings and commercial banks’ deposits with the central bank, stand at minus 30 billion dollars. In other words, the central bank now has large net US dollar liabilities. As such, it has little wherewithal to defend the currency. There are very high odds that the lira depreciation will accelerate in the months ahead. Fourth, the slew of unorthodox measures taken by the Turkish authorities will encourage banks to buy more government local currency bonds to suppress the government’s borrowing costs. When commercial banks buy government securities from non-banks, they create money “out of thin air.” Hence, the ongoing money supply deluge will continue. This is bearish for the currency. Notably, the economy will likely enter into recession next year – and yet core inflation will stay very high (30% and above). Recent unorthodox bank regulations are meant to encourage a certain kind of lending – loans to farmers, exporters, and small and medium-sized businesses – while discouraging other kinds. Consequently, the overall loan growth will likely slow in nominal terms. There are already signs that credit is decelerating on the margin (Chart 19). Given the very high inflation, slower credit growth will likely lead to a liquidity crunch for many businesses – forcing them to curtail their activity.  Chart 19Bank Credit Will Decelerate Due To Many Unorthodox Bank Regulations Bank Credit Will Decelerate Due To Many Unorthodox Bank Regulations Bank Credit Will Decelerate Due To Many Unorthodox Bank Regulations ​​​​​​ Chart 20Bank Loans Are Already Contracting in Real Terms: Not a Good Omen For Real GDP Bank Loans Are Already Contracting in Real Terms: Not a Good Omen For Real GDP Bank Loans Are Already Contracting in Real Terms: Not a Good Omen For Real GDP ​​​​​​ Indeed, in real terms (deflated by core CPI), local currency loan growth has already slipped into negative territory. This is a bad omen for the overall economy: contracting real loan growth is a harbinger of recession (Chart 20). In short, Turkey is looking into an abyss: a recession amid high inflation (i.e., stagflation) as well as a brewing political crisis (with Erdoğan likely doubling down on unorthodox and populist policies). All this point to another period of a large currency depreciation. While the country will likely change direction to avoid the abyss, investors should wait to allocate capital until after the change in direction is confirmed.    Investment Takeaways The Turkish lira will fall much more vis-à-vis the US dollar in the year ahead. Both Turkish stocks and local currency bonds merit an underweight stance in an EM basket. EM sovereign credit investors, however, should be neutral on Turkish sovereign credit relative to the EM sovereign credit benchmark. Turkey is involved in an economic crisis that will devolve into a political crisis over the election cycle. While Erdoğan and the AKP are likely to fall from power as things stand today, they are heavily entrenched and will be difficult to remove, creating large risks of an indecisive or contested election in 2023 that will increase rather than decrease policy uncertainty and the political risk premium in Turkish assets. As a strongman leader Erdoğan has consolidated political power in his own hands, so there is no one to take the blame for the country’s economic mismanagement – other than foreigners. Hence there is a distinct risk that his foreign policy adventurism will escalate between now and next year, resulting in significant military conflicts or saber-rattling. These will shake out western investors who try to speculate on the likelihood that the election or the military will oust Erdoğan and produce sounder national and economic policies. That outcome is indeed likely but Erdoğan is not going without a fight. Our Geopolitical Strategy also recommends tactically shorting the lira versus the Japanese yen in light of global slowdown, extreme geopolitical risk, and the Bank of Japan’s desire to prevent the yen from falling too far.   Matt Gertken Chief Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com Rajeeb Pramanik Senior EM Strategist rajeeb.pramanik@bcaresearch.com Andrija Vesic Consulting Editor Footnotes 1      Sinan Ekim and Kemal Kirişci, “The Turkish constitutional referendum, explained,” Brookings Institution, April 13, 2017, brookings.edu. 2     The central bank replaced an existing 20% reserve requirement ratios for credits with a higher 30% treasury bond collateral requirement. Lenders will have to cut interest rates on commercial loans (except for loans to farmers, exporters, and SMEs). Otherwise, banks will have to maintain additional securities. Strategic Themes Open Tactical Positions (0-6 Months) Open Cyclical Recommendations (6-18 Months) Regional Geopolitical Risk Matrix

Executive Summary The US inflation surprise increases the odds of both congressional gridlock and recession, which increases uncertainty over US leadership past 2024 and reduces the US’s ability to lower tensions with China and Iran.   Despite the mainstream media narrative, the Xi-Putin summit reinforces our view that China cannot reject Russia’s strategic partnership. The potential for conflict in Taiwan forces China to accept Russia’s overture. For the same reason the US and China cannot re-engage their economies sustainably, even if Biden and Xi somehow manage to reduce tensions after the midterm elections and twentieth national party congress. Russia could reduce oil exports as well as natural gas, intensifying the global energy shock. Ukraine’s counter-offensive and Europe’s energy diversification increase the risk of Russian military and economic failure. The Middle East will destabilize anew and create a new source of global energy supply disruptions. US-Iran talks are faltering as expected. Russian Oil Embargo Could Deliver Global Shock Xi-Putin Summit, Ukraine Offensive, Iran Tensions Xi-Putin Summit, Ukraine Offensive, Iran Tensions Asset Initiation Date Return LONG GLOBAL DEFENSIVES / CYCLICALS EQUITIES 2022-01-20 19.1% Bottom Line: Stay long US stocks, defensive sectors, and large caps. Avoid China, Taiwan, eastern Europe, and the Middle East. Feature Several notable geopolitical developments occurred over the past week while we met with clients at the annual BCA Research Investment Conference in New York. In this report we analyze these developments using our geopolitical method, which emphasizes constraints over preferences, capabilities over intentions, reality over narrative. We also draw freely from the many valuable insights gleaned from our guest speakers at the conference.  China Cannot Reject Russia: The Xi-Putin Summit In Uzbekistan Presidents Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin are meeting in Uzbekistan as we go to press and Putin has acknowledged China’s “questions and concern” about the war in Ukraine.1 They last met on February 4 when Xi gave Putin his blessing for the Ukraine invasion, promising to buy more Russian natural gas and to pursue a “no limits” strategic partnership (meaning one that includes extensive military cooperation). The meeting’s importance is clear from both leaders’ efforts to make it happen. Putin is leaving Russia despite rising domestic criticism over his handling of the Ukraine war and European energy war. Ukraine is making surprising gains in the battlefield, particularly around Kharkiv, threatening Russia’s ability to complete the conquest of Donetsk and the Donbas region. Meanwhile Xi is leaving China for the first time since the Covid-19 outbreak, despite the fact that he is only one month away from the most important political event of his life: the October 16 twentieth national party congress, where he hopes to clinch another five, ten, or fifteen years in power, expand his faction’s grip over the political system, and take over Mao Zedong’s unique title as chairman of the Communist Party. We do not yet know the full outcome of the Uzbek summit but we do not see it as a turning point in which China turns on Russia. Instead the summit reinforces our key point to investors all year: China cannot reject Russia. Russia broke energy ties with Europe and is fighting a proxy war with NATO. The Putin regime has lashed Russia to China’s side for the foreseeable future. China may not have wanted to move so quickly toward an exclusive relationship but it is not in a position to reject Russia’s diplomatic overture and leave Putin out to dry. The reason is that China is constrained by the US-led world order and like Russia is attempting to change that order and carve a sphere of influence to improve its national security. Beijing’s immediate goal is to consolidate power across the critical buffer territories susceptible to foreign interests. It has already consolidated Tibet, Xinjiang, Hong Kong, and to some extent the South China Sea, the critical approach to Taiwan. Taiwan is the outstanding buffer space that needs to be subjugated. Xi Jinping has taken it upon himself to unify China and Taiwan within his extended rule. But Taiwanese public opinion has decisively shifted in favor of either an indefinite status quo or independence. Hence China and Taiwan are on a collision course. Regardless of one’s view on the likelihood of war, it is a high enough chance that China, Taiwan, the US, and others will be preparing for it in the coming years. Chart 1US Arms Sales To Taiwan Xi-Putin Summit, Ukraine Offensive, Iran Tensions Xi-Putin Summit, Ukraine Offensive, Iran Tensions The US is attempting to increase its ability to deter China from attacking Taiwan. It believes it failed to deter Russia from invading Ukraine – and Taiwan is far more important to US economy and security than Ukraine. The US is already entering discussions with Taiwan and other allies about a package of severe economic sanctions in the event that China attacks – sanctions comparable to those imposed on Russia. The US Congress is also moving forward with the Taiwan Policy Act of 2022, which will solidify US support for the island as well as increase arms sales (Chart 1).2  Aside from China's military preparation – which needs to be carefully reviewed in light of Russia’s troubles in Ukraine and the much greater difficulty of invading Taiwan – China must prepare to deal with the following three factors in the event of war: 1. Energy: China is overly exposed to sea lines of communication that can be disrupted by the United States Navy. Beijing will have to partner with Russia to import Russian and Central Asian resources and attempt to forge an overland path to the Middle East (Chart 2). Unlike Russia, China cannot supply its own energy during a war and its warfighting capacity will suffer if shortages occur or prices spike. 2. Computer Chips: China has committed at least $200 billion on a crash course to build its own semiconductors since 2013 due to the need to modernize its military and economy and compete with the US on the global stage. But China is still dependent on imports, especially for the most advanced chips, and its dependency is rising not falling despite domestic investments (Chart 3). The US is imposing export controls on advanced microchips and starting to enforce these controls on third parties. The US and its allies have cut off Russia’s access to computer chips, leading to Russian shortages that are impeding their war effort.  Chart 2China’s Commodity Import Vulnerability Xi-Putin Summit, Ukraine Offensive, Iran Tensions Xi-Putin Summit, Ukraine Offensive, Iran Tensions Chart 3China's Imports Of Semiconductors China's Imports Of Semiconductors China's Imports Of Semiconductors     3. US Dollar Reserves: China is still heavily exposed to US dollar assets but its access will be cut off in the event of war, just as the US has frozen Russian, Iranian, Venezuelan, and Cuban assets over the years. China is already diversifying away from the dollar but will have to move more quickly given that Russia had dramatically reduced its exposure and still suffered severely when its access to dollar reserves was frozen this year (Chart 4). Where will China reallocate its reserves? To developing and importing natural resources from Russia, Central Asia, and other overland routes. Chart 4China's US Dollar Exposure China's US Dollar Exposure China's US Dollar Exposure Russia may be the junior partner in a new Russo-Chinese alliance but it will not be a vassal. Russia has resources, military power, and regional control in Central Asia that China needs. Of course, China will maintain a certain diplomatic distance from Russia because it needs to maintain economic relations with Europe and other democracies as it breaks up with the United States. Europe is far more important to Chinese exports than Russia. China will play both sides and its companies will develop parallel supply chains. China will also make gestures to countries that feel threatened by Russia, including the Central Asian members of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO). But the crucial point is that China cannot reject Russia. If the Putin regime fails, China will be diplomatically isolated, it will lose an ally in any Taiwan war, and the US will have a much greater advantage in attempting to contain China in the coming years and decades. Russo-Chinese Alliance And The US Dollar Many investors speculate that China’s diversification away from the US dollar will mark a severe downturn for the currency. This is of course possible, given that Russia and China will form a substantial anti-dollar bloc. Certainly there can be a cyclical downturn in the greenback, especially after the looming recession troughs. But it is harder to see a structural collapse of the dollar as the leading global reserve currency. The past 14 years have shown how global investors react to US dysfunction, Russian aggression, and Chinese slowdown: they buy the dollar! The implication is that a US wage-price spiral, a Russian détente with Europe, and a Chinese economic recovery would be negative for the dollar – but those stars have not yet aligned. Related Report  Geopolitical StrategyThe Geopolitical Consequences Of The Ukraine War The reason China needs to diversify is because it fears US sanctions when it invades Taiwan. Hence reducing its holdings of US treasuries and the dollar signals that it expects war in future. But will other countries rush into the yuan and yuan-denominated bonds if Xi is following in Putin’s footsteps and launching a war of choice, with damaging consequences for the economy? A war over Taiwan would be a global catastrophe and would send other countries plunging into the safe-haven assets, including US assets.   Nevertheless China will diversify and other countries will probably increase their yuan trade over time, just as Russia has done. This will be a cyclical headwind for the dollar at some point. But it will not knock the US off the premier position. That would require a historic downgrade in the US’s economic and strategic capability, as was the case with the United Kingdom after the world wars. China will continue to stimulate the economy after the party congress. A successful Chinese and global economic rebound next year – and a decision to pursue “jaw jaw” with the US and Taiwan rather than “war war” – would be negative for the dollar. Hence we may downgrade our bullish dollar view to neutral on a cyclical basis before long … but not yet and not on a structural basis.  Bottom Line: Favor the US dollar and the euro over the Chinese renminbi and Taiwanese dollar. Underweight Chinese and Taiwanese assets on a structural basis. Ukraine’s Counter-Offensive And A Russian Oil Embargo Ukraine launched a counter-offensive against Russia in September and achieved significant early victories. Russians fell back away from Kharkiv, putting Izyum in Ukrainian hands and jeopardizing Russia’s ability to achieve its war aim of conquering the remaining half of Donetsk province and thus controlling the Donbas region of eastern Ukraine. Russian positions also crumbled west of the Dnieper river, which was always an important limit on Russian capabilities (Map 1). Map 1Status Of Russia-Ukraine War: The Ukrainian Counter-Offensive (September 15, 2022) Xi-Putin Summit, Ukraine Offensive, Iran Tensions Xi-Putin Summit, Ukraine Offensive, Iran Tensions Some commentators, such as Francis Fukuyama in the Washington Post, have taken the Ukrainian counter-offensive as a sign that the Ukrainians will reconquer lost territory and Russia will suffer an outright defeat in this war.3 If Russia cannot conquer the Donbas, its control of the “land bridge” to Crimea will be unsustainable, and it may have to admit defeat. But we are very skeptical. It will be extremely difficult for Ukrainians to drive the Russians out of all of their entrenched positions. US military officials applauded Ukraine’s counter-offensive but sounded a cautious note. The chief problem is that neither President Putin nor the Russian military can afford such a defeat. They will have to double down on the Donbas and land bridge. The war will be prolonged. Ultimately we expect stalemate, which will be a prelude to ceasefire negotiations. But first the fighting will intensify and the repercussions for global economy and markets will get worse. Russia’s war effort is also flagging because Europe is making headway in finding alternatives for Russian natural gas. Russia has cut off flows through the Nord Stream pipeline to Germany, the Yamal pipeline to Poland, and partially to the Ukraine pipeline system, leaving only Turkstream operating normally. Yet EU gas storage is in the middle of its normal range and trending higher (Chart 5).   Chart 5Europe Handling Natural Gas Crisis Well … So Far Xi-Putin Summit, Ukraine Offensive, Iran Tensions Xi-Putin Summit, Ukraine Offensive, Iran Tensions Of course, Europe’s energy supply is still not secure. Cold weather could require more heating than expected. Russia has an incentive to tighten the gas flow further. Flows from Algeria or Azerbaijan could be sabotaged or disrupted (Chart 6). Chart 6Europe’s NatGas Supply Still Not Secure Xi-Putin Summit, Ukraine Offensive, Iran Tensions Xi-Putin Summit, Ukraine Offensive, Iran Tensions Chart 7Europe Tipping Into Recession Anyway Europe Tipping Into Recession Anyway Europe Tipping Into Recession Anyway Russia’s intention is to inflict a recession on Europe so that it begins to rethink its willingness to maintain a long-term proxy war. Recession will force European households to pay the full cost of the energy breakup with Russia all at once. Popular support for war will moderate and politicians will adopt more pragmatic diplomacy. After all they do not have an interest in prolonging the war to the point that it spirals out of control. Clearly the economic pain is being felt, as manufacturing expectations and consumer confidence weaken (Chart 7). Europe’s resolve will not collapse overnight. But the energy crisis can get worse from here. The deeper the recession, the more likely European capitals will try to convince Ukraine to negotiate a ceasefire.   However, given Ukraine’s successes in the field and Europe’s successes in diversification, it is entirely possible that Russia faces further humiliating setbacks. While this outcome may be good for liberal democracies, it is not good for global financial markets, at least not in the short run. If Russia is backed into a corner on both the military and economic fronts, then Putin’s personal security and regime security will be threatened. Russia could attempt to turn the tables or lash out even more aggressively. Already Moscow has declared a new “red line” if the US provides longer-range missiles to Ukraine. A US-Russia showdown, complete with nuclear threats, is not out of the realm of possibility. Russia could also start halting oil exports, as it has threatened to do, to inflict a major oil shock on the European economy. Investors will need to be prepared for that outcome.  Bottom Line: Petro-states have geopolitical leverage as long as global commodity supplies remain tight. Investors should be prepared for the European embargo of Russian oil to provoke a Russian reaction. A larger than expected oil shock is possible given the risk of defeat that Russia faces (Chart 8). Chart 8Russian Oil Embargo Could Deliver Global Shock Xi-Putin Summit, Ukraine Offensive, Iran Tensions Xi-Putin Summit, Ukraine Offensive, Iran Tensions US-Iran Talks Falter Again This trend of petro-state geopolitical leverage was one of our three key views for 2022 and it also extends to the US-Iran nuclear negotiations, which are faltering as expected. Tit-for-tat military action between Iran and its enemies in the Persian Gulf will pick up immediately – i.e. a new source of oil disruption will emerge. If global demand is collapsing then this trend may only create additional volatility for oil markets at first, but it further constrains the supply side for the foreseeable future. It is not yet certain that the talks are dead but a deal before the US midterm looks unlikely. Biden could continue working on a deal in 2023-24. The Democratic Party is likely to lose at least the House of Representatives, leaving him unable to pass legislation and more likely to pursue foreign policy objectives. The Biden administration wants the Iran deal to tamp down inflation and avoid a third foreign policy crisis at a time when it is already juggling Russia and China. The overriding constraints in this situation are that Iran needs a nuclear weapon for regime survival, while Israel will attack Iran as a last resort before it obtains a nuclear weapon. Yes, the US is reluctant to initiate another war in the Middle East. But public war-weariness is probably overrated today (unlike in 2008 or even 2016) and the US has drawn a hard red line against nuclear weaponization. Iran will retaliate to any US-Israeli aggression ferociously. But conflict and oil disruptions will emerge even before the US or Israel decide to launch air strikes, as Iran will face sabotage and cyber-attacks and will need to deter the US and Israel by signaling that it can trigger a region-wide war. Chart 9If US-Iran Talks Fail, Iraq Will Destabilize Further If US-Iran Talks Fail, Iraq Will Destabilize Further If US-Iran Talks Fail, Iraq Will Destabilize Further Recent social unrest in Iraq, where the nationalist coalition of Muqtada al-Sadr is pushing back against Iranian influence, is only an inkling of what can occur if the US-Iran talks are truly dead, Iran pushes forward with its nuclear program, and Israel and the US begin openly entertaining military options. The potential oil disruption from Iraq presents a much larger supply constraint than the failure to remove sanctions on Iran (Chart 9). A new wave of Middle Eastern instability would push up oil prices and strengthen Russia’s hand, distracting the US and imposing further pain on Europe. It would not strengthen China’s hand, but the risk itself would reinforce China’s Eurasian strategy, as Beijing would need to prepare for oil cutoffs in the Persian Gulf. Iran’s attempts to join the Shanghai Cooperation Organization should be seen in this context. Ultimately the only factor that could still possibly convince Iran not to make a dash for the bomb – the military might of the US and its allies – is the same factor that forces China and Russia to strengthen their strategic bond. The emerging Russo-Chinese behemoth, in turn, acts as a hard constraint on any substantial reengagement of the US and Chinese economies. The US cannot afford to feed another decade of Chinese economic growth and modernization if China is allied with Russia and Central Asia. Of course, we cannot rule out the possibility that the Xi and Biden administrations will try to prevent a total collapse of US-China relations in 2023. If China is not yet ready to invade Taiwan then there is a brief space for diplomacy to try to work. But there is no room for long-lasting reengagement – because the US cannot simply cede Taiwan to China, and hence China cannot reject Russia, and Russia no longer has any options. Bottom Line: Expect further oil volatility and price shocks. Sell Middle Eastern equities. Favor North American, Latin American, and Australian energy producers. Investment Takeaways Recession Risks Rising: The inflation surprise in the US in August necessitates more aggressive Fed rate hikes in the near term, which increases the odds of rising unemployment and recession. US Policy Uncertainty Rising: A recession will greatly increase the odds of US political instability over the 2022-24 cycle and reduce the incentive for foreign powers like Iran or China to make concessions or agreements with the US. European Policy Uncertainty Rising: We already expected a European recession. Russia’s setbacks make it more likely that it will adopt more aggressive military tactics and economic warfare. Chinese Policy Uncertainty Rising: China will continue stimulating next year but its economy will suffer from energy shocks and its stimulus is less effective than in the past. It will likely increase economic and military pressure on Taiwan, while the US will increase punitive measures against China. It is not clear that it will launch a full scale invasion of Taiwan – that is not our base case – but it is possible so investors need to be prepared. Long US and Defensives: Stay long US stocks over global stocks, defensive sectors over cyclicals, and large caps over small caps. Buy safe-havens like the oversold Japanese yen. Long Arms Manufacturers: Buy defense stocks and cyber-security firms. Short China and Taiwan: Favor the USD and EUR over the CNY. Favor US semiconductor stocks over Taiwanese equities. Favor Korean over Taiwanese equities. Favor Indian tech over Chinese tech. Favor Singaporean over Hong Kong stocks. Matt Gertken Chief Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1     Tessa Wong and Simon Fraser, “Putin-Xi talks: Russian leader reveals China's 'concern' over Ukraine,” BBC, September 15, 2022, bbc.com. 2     US Senate Foreign Relations Committee, “The Taiwan Policy Act of 2022,” foreign.senate.gov. 3    Greg Sargent, “Is Putin facing defeat? The ‘End of History’ author remains confident,” Washington Post, September 12, 2022, washingtonpost.com.                                                                                         Strategic Themes Open Tactical Positions (0-6 Months) Open Cyclical Recommendations (6-18 Months) Regional Geopolitical Risk Matrix

Executive Summary US Military Constraint: Strait Of Hormuz Will Iran Crisis Be Averted? Will Iran Crisis Be Averted? A US-Iran deal would make for a notable improvement in the geopolitical backdrop during an otherwise gloomy year. It would remove the risk of a major new oil shock. We maintain our 40% subjective odds of a deal, which is well below consensus. The risk of failure is underrated. Our conviction level is only moderate because President Biden can make concessions to clinch a deal – and Supreme Leader Khamenei may want to earn some money and time. Yet we have high conviction in our view that the US will ultimately fail to provide Iran with sufficient security guarantees while Iran will pursue a nuclear deterrent. Hence the Middle East will present a long-term energy supply constraint. In the short term, global growth and recession risk will drive oil prices, not any Iran deal. Asset Initiation Date Return LONG GLOBAL AEROSPACE & DEFENSE / BROAD MARKET EQUITIES 2020-11-27 9.3% Bottom Line: Any US-Iran deal will be marginally positive for risky assets. However, the failure of a deal would sharply increase the odds of oil supply disruptions in the short run. Feature Negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program remain in a critical phase. Rumors suggest Iran has agreed to rejoin the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPA) with the United States. But these rumors are unconfirmed, while the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) just announced that Iran has started operating more advanced centrifuges at its Natanz nuclear site.1 In this report we provide a tactical update on the topic. A US-Iran nuclear deal is one item on our checklist for global macro and geopolitical stability (Table 1). We are pessimistic about a deal but it would be a positive outcome for markets. Table 1Not A Lot Of Positive Catalysts In H2 2022 Will Iran Crisis Be Averted? Will Iran Crisis Be Averted? A decision could come at any moment so investors should bear in mind our key conclusions about a deal: Chart 1Oil Volatility: The Only Certainty Of Iran Saga Oil Volatility: The Only Certainty Of Iran Saga Oil Volatility: The Only Certainty Of Iran Saga 1.  Any deal will be a short-term, stop-gap measure to delay a crisis until 2024 or beyond. This is not a small point because a crisis could lead to a large military conflict. 2.  The short-run implication of any deal is oil volatility, not a drop in oil prices (Chart 1). Global demand is wobbly and OPEC could cut oil production in reaction to a deal. 3.  Over the long run, global supply and demand balances will remain tight even if a deal is agreed. 4.  If there is no deal, then a major new source of global supply constraint will emerge immediately due to a new spiral of conflict in the Middle East. Iran’s nuclear program will continue which will prompt threats from Israel and the Gulf Arab states and Iranian counter-threats. We are sticking with our subjective 40/60 odds that a deal will occur – i.e. our conviction level is medium, not high. The Biden administration wants a deal and has the executive authority to conclude a deal. Iran wants sanctions lifted and can buy time with a short-term deal. Our pessimism stems from the fact that neither side can trust the other, the US can no longer give credible security guarantees, and Iran has a strategic interest in obtaining nuclear weapons. A deal can happen but its durability depends on the 2024 US election. Status Of Negotiations Table 2Iran’s Three Demands Of US For Rejoining 2015 Nuclear Deal Will Iran Crisis Be Averted? Will Iran Crisis Be Averted? Ostensibly there were three outstanding Iranian demands over the month of August that needed to be met to secure a deal (Table 2). Iran reportedly dropped the first demand: that the US remove the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps from the US State Department’s list of Designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations. This concession prompted the news media to become more optimistic about a deal. This leaves two outstanding demands. Iran wants the IAEA conclude a “safeguards” investigation into unexplained uranium traces found at unauthorized sites in Iran, indicating nuclear activity that has not been accounted for. The IAEA will be very reluctant to halt such a probe on a political, not technical, basis. But it could happen under US pressure. Related Report  Geopolitical StrategyRoulette With A Five-Shooter Iran also wants the US to provide a “guarantee” that future presidents will not renege on the nuclear deal and reimpose sanctions like President Trump did in 2019. President Biden cannot give any credible guarantee because the JCPA is an executive action, not a formal treaty, so a different president could reverse it. (The deal always lacked sufficient support in the Senate, even from top Democrats.) Iran is demanding certain diplomatic concessions and/or an economic indemnity in the event of another American reversal. Aside from attempting to incarcerate former President Trump, Biden can only offer empty promises on this front. In what follows we review the critical constraints facing the US and Iran. The US’s Constraints The first constraint on the US is the stagflationary economy. High inflation and oil prices pose a threat to President Biden and the Democrats not only in this year’s midterm elections but also in the 2024 presidential election. A recession is not at all unlikely by that time, given the inverted yield curve (Chart 2). If the US can help maintain stability in the Middle East, then the odds of another major oil supply shock (on top of Russia) will be reduced. Lifting sanctions on Iran will free up around 1 million barrels of oil to feed global demand. With Europe and the US imposing an oil and oil shipping embargo on Russia, the world is likely to lose around two million barrels of crude per day that the Gulf Arab states can only partially make up for, according to our Chief Commodity Strategist Bob Ryan (Table 3). This is a notable material constraint – and the main reason that Bob is more optimistic about an Iran deal than we are. Chart 2US Economic Constraint: Stagflation US Economic Constraint: Stagflation US Economic Constraint: Stagflation ​​​​​ Table 3The Oil Math Behind Any Iran Deal Will Iran Crisis Be Averted? Will Iran Crisis Be Averted? However, Saudi Arabia would be alienated by a US-Iran détente. The American view is that Iranian production would threaten Saudi market share and force the Saudis to produce more. But the Saudis are seeing weakening global demand and have signaled that they will cut production. There is still an economic basis for an Iran deal but it is not clear that it will lower prices, especially in the short run. Over the long run the Saudis are a more reliable oil producer than Iran for both economic and geopolitical reasons. The second constraint is political. The US public is primarily concerned about the economy. Stagflation or recession could ultimately bring down the Biden administration. However, in the short run, American voters are much more concerned about domestic social issues (such as abortion access) than they are about foreign policy. In the long run, American voters are likely to maintain their long-held negative view of Iran (Chart 3). So the Biden administration has an incentive to prevent geopolitical events from hurting the economy but not to join arms with Iran in a major diplomatic agreement. The third constraint is military. Americans are not as war-weary today as they were in 2008 or 2016 but they are still averse to any new military conflicts in the Middle East. An Iranian nuclear bomb could change that view – but until a bomb is tested it will persist. Chart 3US Political Constraint: Americans Ignore Foreign Policy, Dislike Iran Will Iran Crisis Be Averted? Will Iran Crisis Be Averted? ​​​​​​ Chart 4US Military Constraint: Strait Of Hormuz Will Iran Crisis Be Averted? Will Iran Crisis Be Averted? If Iran freezes its nuclear program then it will reduce the odds of a Middle Eastern war and large-scale oil supply disruptions. If Iran does not freeze its nuclear program, then Israel will have to demonstrate a credible military threat against nuclear weaponization, and then Iran will have to demonstrate its region-wide militant capabilities, including the ability to shut down the Strait of Hormuz (Chart 4). The Biden administration wants to delay this downward spiral or avoid it altogether. Chart 5US Strategic Constraint: Avoid Mideast Quagmires Will Iran Crisis Be Averted? Will Iran Crisis Be Averted? The fourth constraint is strategic. The Biden administration wants to avoid conflict if possible because it is attempting to reduce America’s burden in the Middle East so that it can focus on emerging great power competition in Eastern Europe and East Asia. The original motivation for the Iran deal was to enable the US to “pivot to Asia” and counter China. Iranian hegemony in the Middle East is less of a threat than Chinese hegemony in East Asia (Chart 5). This logic is sound if Iran can really be brought to halt its nuclear program. The Europeans need to stabilize and open up the Middle East to create an alternative energy supply to Russia. The Americans need to avoid a nuclear arms race and war in the Middle East that distracts them from China. However, if Iran continues to pursue a nuclear weapon, then the US suffers strategically for doing a short-term deal that provides Iran with time and access to funds. Ultimately the only thing that can dissuade Iran from going nuclear is American power projection in the Middle East – and this capability is also one of the US’s greatest advantages over China. Bottom Line: The US has a strategic, military, and economic interest in concluding a deal that freezes Iran’s nuclear program. It arguably has an interest in a deal even if Iran violates the deal and pursues nuclear weaponization, since that will provide a legitimate basis for what would then become a necessary military intervention. The Biden administration faces some political blowback for a deal but will suffer more if failure to get a deal leads to a Middle Eastern oil shock. For all these reasons Biden administration is attempting to clinch a deal. But Iran is the sticking point. Iran’s Constraints Our reasons for pessimism regarding the nuclear talks hinge on Iran, not the United States. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s goal is to secure the regime and arrange for a stable succession in the coming years. A deal with the Americans made sense in that context. But going forward, if dealing with the Americans does not bring credible security guarantees and yet makes the economy vulnerable again to a future snapback of sanctions, then the justification for the deal falls apart. We cannot read Khamenei’s mind any more than we can read Biden’s mind, so we will look at the material limitations. Chart 6Iran's Economic Constraint: Stagflation Iran's Economic Constraint: Stagflation Iran's Economic Constraint: Stagflation First, the economic constraint: The Iranian economy suffered a huge negative shock from the reimposition of sanctions in 2019 (Chart 6). However, the economy has sputtered through this shock and the Covid-19 shock without collapsing. Social unrest is an ever-present risk but it has not spiraled out of control. There has not been an attempted democratic revolution like in 2009. The upswing in the global commodity cycle has reinforced the regime. Sanctions do not prevent exports entirely. There is still a huge monetary incentive to let the Biden administration lift sanctions if it wants to do so: a deal is estimated to free up $100 billion dollars per year in revenue for the regime for ten years.2 Realistically this should be understood as more than $275 billion for two years since the longevity of the deal is in question. The problem is that Iran’s economy would be fully exposed to sanctions again if the US changed its mind. The bottom line is that the economic constraint does not force Iran to accept a deal but it is enticing. Second comes the political constraint. President Ebrahim Raisi hopes to become supreme leader someday and is loath to put his name on a deal with weak foundations. He originally opposed the deal, was vindicated, and does not now want to jeopardize his political future by making the same mistake as his hapless predecessor, Hassan Rouhani. Opinion polls may not be reliable in putting Raisi as the most popular politician in Iran but they probably are reliable in showing Rouhani at the bottom of the heap (Chart 7). There is a significant political constraint against rejoining the deal. Chart 7Iran’s Political Constraint: Risk Of American Betrayal Will Iran Crisis Be Averted? Will Iran Crisis Be Averted? Chart 8Iran’s Military Constraint: Outgunned, Unsure Of Allies Will Iran Crisis Be Averted? Will Iran Crisis Be Averted? Third comes the military constraint. While Iran is extremely vulnerable to Israeli and American military attack, it is also a fortress of a country, nestled in mountains, and airstrikes may not succeed in destroying the entire nuclear program or bringing down the regime. An attack by Israel could convert an entirely new generation to the Islamic revolution. And Iran may believe that the US lacks the popular support for military action in the wake of Iraq and Afghanistan. Iran may also believe that China and Russia will provide military and economic support (Chart 8). Ultimately, America has demonstrated a willingness to attack rogue states and Iran will try to avoid that outcome, since it could succeed in toppling the regime. But if Iran believes it can acquire a deliverable nuclear weapon in a few short years, then it may make a dash for it, since this solution would be a permanent solution: a nuclear deterrent against western attack, as opposed to temporary diplomatic promises. We often compare Iran’s strategic predicament to that of Ukraine, Libya, and North Korea. Ukraine gave up its Soviet nuclear weapons after the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, which promised that Russia, the US, the UK, France, and China would guarantee its security. Yet Russia ended up invading 20 years later – and none of the others prevented it or sent troops to halt the Russian advance. Separately Libya gave up its nuclear program in 2003 but NATO attacked and toppled the regime in 2011 anyway. Meanwhile North Korea played the diplomatic game with the US, ever inching along on the path toward nuclear weapons, and today has achieved nuclear-armed status and greater regime security. The outflow of refugees from the various regimes shows why Iran will emulate North Korea (Chart 9). Chart 9Iran’s Strategic Constraint: The Need For A Nuclear Deterrent Will Iran Crisis Be Averted? Will Iran Crisis Be Averted? Bottom Line: Iran has a short-term economic incentive to agree to a deal and a long-term military incentive. But ultimately the US cannot provide ironclad security guarantees that would justify halting the quest for a nuclear deterrent. A nuclear deterrent would overcome the military constraint. Therefore Iran will continue on that path. Any deal will be a ruse to buy time. Final Assessment The 2015 deal occurred in a context of Iranian strategic isolation, when American implementation was credible, oil prices were weak, and Iran had not achieved nuclear breakout capacity. Today Iran is not isolated (thanks to US quarrels with Russia and China), American guarantees are not credible (thanks to the polarization of foreign policy), oil prices are not weak (thanks to Russia), and Iran has already achieved nuclear breakout (Table 4). Table 4Iran’s Nuclear Program Status Check, Aug. 31, 2022 Will Iran Crisis Be Averted? Will Iran Crisis Be Averted? The US’s strategic aim is to create a balance of power in the region but Iran’s strategic aim is to ensure regime survival. The US’s emerging balancing coalition (Israel and the Gulf Arab states) increases the strategic threat to Iran and hence its need for a nuclear deterrent. While Russia and China formally support the 2015 deal, they each see Iran as a valuable asset in a great power struggle with the United States. Iran sees them the same way. Russia needs Iran as a partner to bypass western sanctions. Regardless, it benefits from Middle Eastern instability, which could entangle the United States. China must develop a deep long-term partnership with Iran for its own strategic reasons and does not look forward to a time when the US divests from that region to impose tougher strategic containment on China. China can survive a US conflict with Iran – and such a conflict could reduce the US ability to defend Taiwan. While neither Russia nor China positively desire Iran to obtain nuclear weapons, neither power stopped North Korea from obtaining the bomb – far from it. Russia assumes that Israel and the US will take military action to prevent weaponization, which would be catastrophic for the region but positive for Russia. China also assumes Israel and the US will act, which reinforces its need to diversify energy options so that it can access Russian, Central Asian, and Middle Eastern oil via pipeline. Investment Takeaways Our negative view on the global economy and geopolitical backdrop is once again being priced into global financial markets as equities fall anew. An Iran deal would delay a notable geopolitical risk for roughly the next 24 months and hence remove a major upside risk for oil prices. This would be marginally positive for global equities, although it will not be the driver. Europe’s and China’s economic woes are the drivers. The failure of a deal would bring major upside risks for oil into the near term and as such would be negative for equities – and could even become the global driver, as Middle Eastern oil disruptions will follow promptly from any failure of the deal. We continue to recommend that investors overweight US equities relative to global, defensive sectors relative to cyclicals, and large caps relative to small caps. We are overweight aerospace and defense stocks, India and Southeast Asia within emerging markets, and underweight China and Taiwan.   Matt Gertken Chief Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1      See Iran International, “Exclusive: Ex-IAEA Official Says US And Iran To Sign Deal Soon,” August 30, 2022, iranintl.com. See also Francois Murphy, “Iran enriching uranium with more IR-6 centrifuges at Natanz -IAEA,” Reuters, August 31, 2022, reuters.com. 2     See Saeed Ghasseminejad, “Tehran’s $1 Trillion Deal: An Updated Forecast of Iran’s Financial Windfall From a New Nuclear Agreement,” Foundation for Defense of Democracies, August 19, 2022, fdd.org. Strategic Themes Open Tactical Positions (0-6 Months) Open Cyclical Recommendations (6-18 Months) Regional Geopolitical Risk Matrix

Executive Summary With the fourth Taiwan Strait crisis materializing, the odds of a major war between the world’s great powers have gone up. Our decision trees suggest the odds are around 20%, or double where they stood from the Russian war in Ukraine alone. The world is playing “Russian roulette” … with a five-round revolver. Going forward, our base case is for Taiwan tensions to flatten out (but not fall) after the US and Chinese domestic political events conclude this autumn. However, if China escalates tensions after the twentieth national party congress, then the odds of an invasion will rise significantly. If conflict erupts in Taiwan, then the odds of Russia turning even more aggressive in Europe will rise. Iran is highly likely to pursue nuclear weapons. Not A Lot Of Positive Catalysts In H2 2022 Roulette With A Five-Shooter Roulette With A Five-Shooter Tactical Recommendation Inception Date Return LONG US 10-YEAR TREASURY 2022-04-14 1.3% LONG GLOBAL DEFENSIVES / CYCLICALS EQUITIES 2022-01-20 13.8% Bottom Line: Investors should remain defensively positioned at least until the Chinese party congress and the US midterm election conclude this fall. Geopolitical risk next year will depend on China’s actions in the Taiwan Strait. Feature Chart 1Speculation Rising About WWIII Roulette With A Five-Shooter Roulette With A Five-Shooter Pessimists who pay attention to world events have grown concerned in recent years about the risk that the third world war might break out. The term has picked up in online searches since 2019, though it is the underlying trend of global multipolarity, rather than the specific crisis events, that justifies the worry (Chart 1).1 What are the odds of a major war between the US and China, or the US and Russia? How might that be calculated? In this report we present a series of “decision trees” to formalize the different scenarios and probabilities. If we define WWIII as a war in which the United States engages in direct warfare with either Russia or China, or both, then we arrive at a 20% chance that WWIII will break out in the next couple of years! Those are frighteningly high odds – but history teaches that these odds are not unrealistic and that investors should not be complacent. Political scientist Graham Allison has shown that the odds of a US-China war over the long term are about 75% based on historical analogies. The takeaway is that nations will have to confront this WWIII risk and reject it for the global political environment to improve. Most likely they will do so as WWIII, and the risk of nuclear warfare that it would bring, constitutes the ultimate constraint. But the current behavior of the great powers suggests that they have not recognized their constraints yet and are willing to continue with brinksmanship in the short term. The Odds Of A Chinese Invasion Of Taiwan The first question is whether China will invade Taiwan. In April 2021 we predicted that the fourth Taiwan Strait crisis would occur within 12-24 months but that it would not devolve into full-scale war. This view is now being tested. In Diagram 1 we provide a decision tree to map out China’s policy options toward Taiwan and assign probabilities to each option. Diagram 1Decision Tree For Fourth Taiwan Strait Crisis (Next 24 Months) Roulette With A Five-Shooter Roulette With A Five-Shooter While China has achieved the capability to invade Taiwan, the odds of failure remain too high, especially without more progress on its nuclear triad. Hence we give only a 20% chance that China will mobilize for invasion immediately. Needless to say any concrete signs that China is planning an invasion should be taken seriously. Investors and the media dismissed Russia’s military buildup around Ukraine in 2021 to their detriment. At the same time, there is a good chance that the US and China are merely testing the status quo in the Taiwan Strait, which will be reinforced after the current episode. After all, this crisis was the fourth Taiwan Strait crisis – none of the previous crises led to war. If Presidents Biden and Xi Jinping are merely flexing their muscles ahead of important domestic political events this fall, then they have already achieved their objective. No further shows of force are necessary on either side, at least for the next few years. We give 40% odds to this scenario, in which the past week’s tensions will linger but the status quo is reinforced. In that case, the structural problem of the Taiwan Strait would flare up again sometime after the US and Taiwanese presidential elections in 2024, i.e. outside the time frame of the diagram. Unfortunately we are pessimistic over the long run and would give high probability to war in Taiwan. For that reason, we give equal odds (40%) to a deteriorating situation within the coming two years. If China expands drills and sanctions after the party congress, after Xi has consolidated power, then it will be clear that Xi is not merely performing for his domestic audience. Similarly if the Biden administration continues pushing for tighter high-tech export controls against China after the midterm election, and insists that US allies and partners do the same, then the US implicitly believes that China is preparing some kind of offensive operation. The danger of invasion would rise from 20% to 40%. Even in that case, one should still believe that crisis diplomacy between the US and China will prevent full-scale war in 2023-24. But the risk of miscalculation would be very high. The last element of this decision tree holds that China will prefer “gray zone tactics” or hybrid warfare rather than conventional amphibious invasion of the kind witnessed in WWII. The reasons are several. First, amphibious invasions are the most difficult military operations. Second, Chinese forces are inexperienced while the US and its allies are entrenched. Third, hybrid warfare will sow division among the US allies about how best to respond. Fourth, Russia has demonstrated several times over the past 14 years that hybrid warfare works. It is a way of maximizing strategic benefits and minimizing costs. The world knows how the West reacts to small invasions: it uses economic sanctions. It does not yet know how the West reacts to big invasions. So China will be incentivized to take small bites. And yet in Taiwan’s case those tactics may not be sustainable. Our Taiwan decision tree does not account for the likelihood that a hybrid war or “proxy war” will evolve into a major war. But that likelihood is in fact high. So we are hardly overrating the risk of a major US-China war. Bottom Line: Over the next two years, the subjective odds of a US-China proxy war over Taiwan are about 32% while the odds of a direct US-China war are about 4%. The true test comes after Xi Jinping consolidates power at this fall’s party congress. We expect Xi to focus on rebooting the economy so we continue to favor emerging Asian markets excluding China and Taiwan. The Odds Of Russian War With NATO The second question is whether Russia’s war in Ukraine will morph into a broader war with the West. The odds of a major Russia-West war are greater in this case than in China’s, as a war is already raging, whereas tensions in the Taiwan Strait are merely shadow boxing so far. An investor’s base case should hold that the Ukraine war will remain contained in Ukraine, as Europeans do not want to fight a devastating war with Russia merely because of the Donbas. But things often go wrong in times of war. The critical question is whether Russia will attack any NATO members. That would trigger Article Five of the alliance’s treaty, which holds that “an armed attack against one or more [alliance members] in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all,” justifying the use of armed force if necessary to restore security. Since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine this year, President Biden has repeatedly stated that the US will “defend every inch of NATO territory,” including the Baltic states of Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia, which joined NATO in 2004. This is not a change of policy but it is the US’s red line and highly likely to be defended. Hence it is a major constraint on Russia. In Diagram 2 we map out Russia’s different options and assign probabilities. Diagram 2Decision Tree For Russia-Ukraine War (Next 24 Months) Roulette With A Five-Shooter Roulette With A Five-Shooter We give 55% odds that Russia will declare victory after completing the conquest of Ukraine’s Donbas region and the land bridge to Crimea. It will start looking to legitimize its conquests by means of some diplomatic agreement, i.e. a ceasefire. This is our base case for 2023. There is evidence that Russia is already starting to move toward diplomacy.2 The reason is that Russia’s economy is suffering, global commodity prices are falling, Russian blood and treasure are being spent. President Putin will have largely achieved his goal of hobbling Ukraine as long as he controls the mouth of the Dnieper river and the rest of the territory he has invaded. Putin needs to seal his conquests and try to salvage the economy and society. The sooner the better for Russia, so that Europe can be prevented from forming a consensus and implementing a full natural gas embargo in the coming years. However, there is a risk that Putin’s ambition gets the better of him. So we give 35% odds that the invasion expands to southwestern Ukraine, including the strategic port city of Odessa, and to eastern Moldova, where Russian troops are stationed in the breakaway region of Transdniestria. This new campaign would render Ukraine fully landlocked, neutralize Moldova, and give Russia greater maritime access. But it would unify the EU, precipitate a natural gas embargo, and weaken Russia to a point where it could become desperate. It could retaliate and that retaliation could conceivably lead to a broader war. We allot only a 7% chance that Putin attacks Finland or Sweden for attempting to join NATO. Stalin failed in Finland and Putin’s army could not even conquer Kiev. The UK has pledged to support these states, so an attack on them will most likely trigger a war with NATO. A decision to attack Finland would only occur if Russia believed that NATO planned to station military bases there – i.e. Russia’s declared red line. Any Russian attack on the Baltic states is less likely because they are already in NATO. But there is some risk it could happen if Putin grows desperate. We put the risk of a Baltic invasion at 3%. In short, if Russia uses its energy stranglehold on Europe not to negotiate a favorable ceasefire but rather to expand its invasions, then the odds of a broader war will rise. Bottom Line: The result is a 55% chance of de-escalation over the next 24 months, a 35% chance of a small escalation (e.g. Odessa, Moldova), and a 10% chance of major escalation that involves NATO members and likely leads to a NATO-Russia war. Tactically, investors should buy developed-market European currency and assets if the global economy rebounds and Russia makes a clear pivot to halting its military campaign and pursuing ceasefire talks. Cyclically, there needs to be a deeper US-Russia understanding for a durable bull market in European assets. The Odds Of US-Israeli Strikes On Iran The third geopolitical crisis taking place this year could be postponed as we go to press – if President Biden and Ayatollah Ali Khamenei agree to rejoin the 2015 US-Iran nuclear deal. But we remain skeptical. The Biden administration wants to rejoin the 2015 nuclear deal and free up about one million barrels per day of Iranian crude oil to reduce prices at the pump before the midterm election. US grand strategy also wants to engage with Iran and stabilize the Middle East so that the US can pivot to Asia. The EU is proposing the deal since it has even greater need for Iranian resources and wants to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons. Russia and China are also supportive as they want to remove US sanctions for trading with Iran and do not necessarily want Iran to get nukes. There is only one problem: Iran needs nuclear weapons to ensure its regime’s survival over the long run. The question is whether Khamenei is willing to authorize a deal with the Americans a second time. The first deal was betrayed at great cost to his regime. President Ebrahim Raisi, who hopes to replace the 83-year-old Khamenei before long, is surely staunchly opposed to wagering his career and personal security on whether Republicans win the 2024 election. Iran has already achieved nuclear breakout capacity – it has enough 60%-enriched uranium to construct nuclear devices – and it is unclear why it would achieve this capacity if it did not ultimately seek to obtain a nuclear deterrent. Especially given that it may someday need to protect its regime from military attacks by the US and its allies. However, our conviction level is medium because President Biden wants to lift sanctions and can do so unilaterally. The Biden administration has not taken any of the preliminary actions to make a deal come together but that could change.3 There is a good cyclical case to be made for short-term, stop-gap deal. According to BCA’s Commodity & Energy Strategist Bob Ryan, Saudi Arabia and the UAE only have about 1.5 million barrels of spare oil production capacity between them. The EU oil embargo and western sanctions on Russia will force about two million barrels per day to be stopped, soaking up most of OPEC’s capacity. Hence the Biden administration needs the one million barrels that Iran can bring. We cannot deny that the Iranians may sign a deal to allow Biden to lift sanctions. That would benefit their economy. They could allow nuclear inspectors while secretly shifting their focus to warhead and ballistic missile development. While Iran will not give up the long pursuit of a nuclear deterrent, it is adept at playing for time. Still, Iran’s domestic politics do not support a deal – and its grand strategy only supports a deal if the US can provide credible security guarantees, which the US cannot do because its foreign policy is inconsistent. US grand strategy supports a deal but only if it is verifiable, i.e. not if Iran uses it as cover to pursue a bomb anyway. Iran has not capitulated after three years of maximum US sanctions, a pandemic, and global turmoil. And Iran sees a much greater prospect of extracting strategic benefits from Russia and China now that they have turned aggressive against the West. Moscow and Beijing can be strategic partners due to their shared acrimony toward Washington. Whereas the US can betray the Raisi administration just as easily as it betrayed the Rouhani administration, with the result that the economy would be whipsawed again and the Supreme Leader and the political establishment would be twice the fools in the eyes of the public. Diagram 3 spells out Iran’s choices. Diagram 3Decision Tree For Iran Nuclear Crisis (Next 24 Months) Roulette With A Five-Shooter Roulette With A Five-Shooter If negotiations collapse (50% odds), then Iran will make a mad dash for a nuclear weapon before the US and Israel attack. If the US and Iran agree to a deal (40%), then Iran might comply with the deal’s terms through the 2024 US election, removing the issue from investor concerns for now. But their long-term interest in obtaining a nuclear deterrent will not change and the conflict will revive after 2024. If talks continue without resolution (10%), Iran will make gradual progress on its nuclear program without the restraints of the deal (though it may not need to make a mad dash). In short, Russia and China need Iran regardless of whether it freezes its nuclear program, whereas the US and Israel will form a balance-of-power Abraham Alliance to contain Iran even if it does freeze its nuclear program. Bottom Line: Investors should allot 40% odds to a short-term, stop-gap US-Iran nuclear deal. The oil price drop would be fleeting. Long-term supply will not be expanded because the US cannot provide Iran with the security guarantees that it needs to halt its nuclear program irreversibly. The Odds Of World War III Now comes the impossible part, where we try to put these three geopolitical crises together. In what follows we are oversimplifying. But the purpose is to formalize our thinking about the different players and their options. Diagram 4 begins with our conclusions regarding the China/Taiwan conflict, adjusts the odds of a broader Russian war as a result, and adds our view that Iran is highly likely to pursue nuclear weapons. Again the time frame is two years. Diagram 4Decision Tree For World War III (Next 24 Months) Roulette With A Five-Shooter Roulette With A Five-Shooter The alternate conflict scenario to WWIII consists of “limited wars” – a dangerous concept that refers to hybrid and proxy wars in which the US is not involved, or only involved indirectly. Or it could be a conflict with Iran that does not involve Russia and China. We begin with China because China is the most capable and most ambitious global power today. China’s strategic rise is upsetting the global order and challenging the United States. We also start with China because we have some evidence this year that Russia does not intend to expand the war beyond Ukraine. Either China takes further aggressive action in Taiwan – creating a unique opportunity for Russia to take greater risks – or not. If not, then the odds of WWIII fall precipitously over the two-year period. This scenario is our base case. But if China attacks Taiwan and the US defends Taiwan, we give a high probability to Russia invading the Baltics. If China stages hybrid attacks and the US only supports Taiwan indirectly, then we increase the odds of Russian aggression only marginally. The result is 20% odds of WWIII, i.e. a direct war between the US and Russia, or China, or both. Whether this war could remain limited is debatable. War gaming since 1945 shows that any war between major nuclear powers will more likely escalate than not. But nuclear weapons bring mutually assured destruction, the ultimate constraint. The nuclear escalation risk is why we round down the probability of WWIII in our decision trees. The more likely 59% risk scenario of “limited wars” may seem like a positive outcome but it includes major increases in geopolitical tensions from today’s level, such as a Chinese hybrid war against Taiwan. Bottom Line: According to this exercise the odds of WWIII could be as high as 20%. This is twice the level in our Russia decision tree, which is appropriate given that our Taiwan crisis forecast has materialized. The critical factor is whether Beijing continues escalating the pressure on Taiwan after the party congress this fall. That could unleash a dangerous chain reaction. The global economy and financial markets still face downside risk from geopolitics but 2023 could see improvements if Russia moves toward a ceasefire and China delays action against Taiwan to reboot its economy. Investment Takeaways When Russia invaded Ukraine earlier this year, our colleague Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist, argued that the odds of nuclear Armageddon were 10%. At very least this is a reasonable probability for the odds that Russia and NATO come to blows. Now the expected Taiwan crisis has materialized. We guess that the odds of a major war have doubled to 20%. The corollary is an 80% chance of a better outcome. Analytically, we still see Russia as pursuing a limited objective – neutralizing Ukraine so that it cannot be prosperous and militarily powerful – while China also pursues a limited objective – intimidating Taiwan so that it pursues subordination rather than nationhood. Unless these objectives change, we are still far from World War III. The world can live with a hobbled Ukraine and a subordinated Taiwan. However, there can be no denying that the trajectory of global affairs since the 2008 global financial crisis has followed a pathway uncomfortably similar to the lead up to World War II: financial crisis, economic recession, deflation, domestic unrest, currency depreciation, trade protectionism, debt monetization, military buildup, inflation, and wars of aggression. If roulette is the game, then the odds of a global war are one-sixth or 17%, not far from the 20% outcome of our decision trees. Even assuming that we are alarmist, the fact that we can make a cogent, formal argument that the odds of WWIII are as high as 20% suggests that investors should wait for the current tensions over Ukraine and Taiwan to decrease before making large new risky bets. A simple checklist shows that the global macro and geopolitical context is gloomy (Table 1). We need improvement on the checklist before becoming more optimistic. Table 1Not A Lot Of Positive Catalysts In H2 2022 Roulette With A Five-Shooter Roulette With A Five-Shooter Chart 2Stay Defensively Positioned In H2 2022 Stay Defensively Positioned In H2 2022 Stay Defensively Positioned In H2 2022 Specifically what investors need is to be reasonably reassured that Russia will not expand the war to NATO and that China will not invade Taiwan anytime soon. This requires a new diplomatic understanding between the Washington and Moscow and Washington and Beijing that forestalls conflict. That kind of understanding can only be forged in crisis. The relevant crises are under way but not yet complete. There is likely more downside for global equity investors before war risks are dispelled through the usual solution: diplomacy. Wait for concrete and credible improvements to the global system before taking a generally overweight stance toward risky assets. Favor government bonds over stocks, US stocks over global stocks, defensive sectors over cyclicals, and disfavor Chinese and Taiwanese currency and assets (Chart 2).     Matt Gertken Chief Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1      See Graham Allison, Destined For War: Can America and China Escape Thucydides’s Trap? (New York: Houghton Miffin Harcourt, 2017). 2     For example, the Turkish brokered deal to ship grain out of Odessa, diplomatic support for rejoining the 2015 Iran nuclear deal, referendums in conquered territories like Kherson, and attempts to build up leverage in arms reduction talks. Cutting off Europe’s energy is ultimately a plan to coerce Europe into settling a ceasefire favorable for Russia. 3     Iran is still making extraneous demands – most recently that the IAEA drop a probe into how certain manmade uranium particles appeared in undisclosed nuclear sites in Iran. The IAEA has not dropped this probe and its credibility will suffer if it does. Meanwhile Biden is raising not lowering sanctions on Iran, even though sanction relief is a core Iranian demand. Biden has not removed the Iranian Revolutionary Guards or the Qods Force from the terrorism list. None of these hurdles are prohibitive but we would at least expect to see some movement before changing our view that a deal is more likely to fail than succeed. Strategic Themes Open Tactical Positions (0-6 Months) Open Cyclical Recommendations (6-18 Months) Regional Geopolitical Risk Matrix "Batting Average": Geopolitical Strategy Trades ()

Executive Summary Iran Reaches Nuclear Breakout Biden And Putin Court The Middle East Biden And Putin Court The Middle East The next geopolitical crisis will stem from the Middle East. The US, Russia, and China are striving for greater influence there and Iran’s nuclear quest is reaching a critical juncture. The risk of US-Israeli attacks against Iran remains 40% over the medium term and will rise sharply if Iran attempts to construct a deliverable nuclear device. Saudi Arabia may increase oil production but only if global demand holds up, which OPEC will assess at its August 3 meeting. Global growth risks will prevail in the short term and reduce its urgency. Russia will continue to squeeze supplies of energy and food for the outside world. The restart of Nord Stream 1 and the Turkey-brokered grain export proposal are unreliable signals. Russia’s aim is victory in Ukraine and any leverage will be used. The US may be done with the Middle East but the Middle East may not be done with the US. Structurally we remain bullish on gold and European defense stocks but we are booking 17% and 18% gains on our current trades. The deterioration in global growth and likely pullback in inflation will temporarily undercut these trades. Tactical Recommendation Inception Date Return LONG GOLD (CLOSED) 2019-06-12 17.1% LONG EUROPEAN AEROSPACE & DEFENSE / EUROPEAN TECH EQUITIES (CLOSED) 2022-03-18 17.9% Bottom Line: Global demand is weakening, which will weigh on bond yields and commodities. Yet underlying oil supply constraints persist – and US-Iran conflict will exacerbate global stagflation. Feature Chart 1Equity Volatility And Oil Price Volatility Equity Volatility And Oil Price Volatility Equity Volatility And Oil Price Volatility US President Joe Biden visited Saudi Arabia last week in a belated attempt to make amends with OPEC, increase oil production, and reduce inflation ahead of the midterm election. Biden also visited Israel to deter Iran, which is the next geopolitical crisis that markets are underrating. Meanwhile Russian President Vladimir Putin went to Iran on his second trip outside of Russia since this year’s invasion of Ukraine. Putin sought an ally in his conflict with the West, while also negotiating with Turkish President Recep Erdogan, who sought to position himself as a regional power broker. In this report we analyze Biden’s and Putin’s trips and what they mean for the global economy and macro investors. Macroeconomics is bearish for oil in the short term but geopolitics is bullish for oil in the short-to-medium term. The result is volatility (Chart 1). OPEC May Pump More Oil But Not On Biden’s Time Frame Here are the important developments from Biden’s trip: A credible threat against Iran: The US and Israel issued a joint declaration underscoring their red line against Iranian nuclear weaponization.1 Meanwhile the Iranians claimed to have achieved “nuclear breakout,” i.e. enough highly enriched uranium to construct a nuclear device (Chart 2). A balance-of-power coalition to contain Iran: Israel and Saudi Arabia improved relations on the margin. Each took action to build on the strategic détente between Israel and various Arab states that is embodied in the 2020 Abraham Accords.2 This strategic détente has staying power because it is a self-interested attempt by the various nations to protect themselves against common rivals, particularly Iran (Chart 3). Biden also tried to set up a missile defense network with Israel and the Arabs, although it was not finalized.3 Chart 2Iran Reaches Nuclear Breakout Biden And Putin Court The Middle East Biden And Putin Court The Middle East A reaffirmed US-Saudi partnership: The US and Saudi Arabia reaffirmed their partnership despite a rocky patch over the past decade. The rocky patch arises from US energy independence, China’s growth, and US attempts to normalize ties with Iran (Chart 4). These trends caused the Saudis to doubt US support and to view China as a strategic hedge. Chart 3Iran: Surrounded And Outgunned Biden And Putin Court The Middle East Biden And Putin Court The Middle East ​​​​​​ President Biden came into office aiming to redo the Iran deal and halt arms sales to Saudi Arabia. Since then he has been chastened by high energy prices, a low approval rating, and hawkish Iranian policy. On this trip he came cap in hand to the Saudis in a classic example of geopolitical constraints. If the US-Iran deal is verifiably dead, then US-Saudi ties will improve sustainably. (Though of course the Saudis will still do business with China and even start trading with China in the renminbi.) What global investors want to know is whether the Saudis and OPEC will pump more oil. The answer is maybe someday. The Saudis will increase production to save the global business cycle but not the Democrats’ election cycle. They told Biden that they will increase production only if there is sufficient global demand. Global Brent crude prices have fallen by 6% since May, when Biden booked his trip, so the kingdom is not in a great rush to pump more. Its economy is doing well this year (Chart 5). Chart 4Drivers Of Saudi Anxiety Drivers Of Saudi Anxiety Drivers Of Saudi Anxiety ​​​​​ Chart 5Saudis Won't Pump If Demand Is Weak Saudis Won't Pump If Demand Is Weak Saudis Won't Pump If Demand Is Weak ​​​​​​ At the same time, if global demand rebounds, the Saudis will not want global supply constraints to generate punitive prices that cap the rebound or kill the business cycle. After all, a global recession would deplete Saudi coffers, set back the regime’s economic reforms, exacerbate social problems, and potentially stir up political dissent (Chart 6). Related Report  Geopolitical StrategyThird Quarter Geopolitical Outlook: Thunder And Lightning Hence the Saudis will not increase production substantially until they have assessed the global economy and discussed the outlook with the other members of the OPEC cartel in August and September, when the July 2021 agreement to increase production expires. We expect global demand to weaken as Europe and China continue to struggle. Our Commodity & Energy Strategist Bob Ryan argues that further escalation in the energy war between the EU and Russia could push prices above $220 per barrel by Q4 2023, whereas an economic collapse could push Brent down to $60 per barrel. His base case Brent price forecast remains $110 per barrel on average in 2022 and $117 per barrel in 2023 (Chart 7). Chart 6Saudis Will Pump To Prevent Recession Saudis Will Pump To Prevent Recession Saudis Will Pump To Prevent Recession ​​​​​​ Chart 7BCA's July 2022 Oil Price Forecast BCA's July 2022 Oil Price Forecast BCA's July 2022 Oil Price Forecast ​​​​​​ The geopolitical view suggests upside oil risks over the short-to-medium time frame but the macroeconomic view suggests that downside risks will be priced first. Bottom Line: Saudi Arabia may increase production but not at any US president’s beck and call. The Saudis are not focused on US elections, they benefit from the current level of prices, and they do not suffer if Republicans take Congress in November. The downside risk in oil prices stems from demand disappointments in global growth (especially China) rather than any immediate shifts in Saudi production discipline. Volatility will remain high. US-Iran Talks: Dying But Not Dead Yet In fact the Middle East underscores underlying and structural oil supply constraints despite falling global demand. While Iran is a perennial geopolitical risk, the world is reaching a critical juncture over the next couple of years. Investors should not assume that Iran can quietly achieve nuclear arms like North Korea. Since August 2021 we have argued that the US and Iran would fail to put back together the 2015 nuclear deal (the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action or JCPA). This failure would in turn lead to renewed instability across the Middle East and sporadic supply disruptions as the different nations trade military threats and potentially engage in direct warfare. This forecast is on track after Biden’s and Putin’s trip – but we cannot yet say that it is fully confirmed. Biden’s joint declaration with Israeli Prime Minister Yair Lapid closed any daylight that existed between the US and Israel. Given that there was some doubt about the intentions of Biden and the Democrats, it is now crystal clear that the US is determined to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons even if it requires military action. The US specifically said that it will use “all instruments of national power” to prevent that outcome. Chart 8Iran Not Forced To Capitulate Iran Not Forced To Capitulate Iran Not Forced To Capitulate Judging by the tone of the statement, the Israelis wrote the document and Biden signed it.4 Biden’s foreign policy emphasizes shoring up US alliances and partnerships, which means letting allies and partners set the line. Israel’s Begin Doctrine – which says that Israel is willing to attack unilaterally and preemptively to prevent a hostile neighbor from obtaining nuclear weapons – has been reinforced. The US is making a final effort to intimidate Iran into rejoining the deal. By clearly and unequivocally reiterating its stance on nuclear weapons, and removing doubts about its stance on Israel, there is still a chance that the Iranian calculus could change. This is possible notwithstanding Ayatollah Khamenei’s friendliness with Putin and criticisms of western deception.5 After all, why would the Iranians want to be attacked by the US and Israeli militaries? Iran will need to think very carefully about what it does next. Khamenei just turned 83 years old and is trying to secure the Islamic Republic’s power transition and survival after his death. Here are the risks: Iran’s economy, buoyed by the commodity cycle, is not so weak as to force Khamenei to capitulate. Back in 2015 oil prices had collapsed and his country was diplomatically isolated. Today the economy has somewhat weathered the storm of the US’s maximum pressure sanctions (Chart 8). Iran is in bad shape but it has not been brought to its knees. Another risk is that Khamenei believes the American public lacks the appetite for war. Americans say they are weary of Middle Eastern wars and do not feel particularly threatened by Iran. However, this would be a miscalculation. US war-weariness is nearing the end of its course. The US engages in a major military expedition roughly every decade. Americans are restless and divided – and the political elite fear populism – so a new foreign distraction is not as unlikely as the consensus holds. Moreover a nuclear Iran is not an idle threat but would trigger a regional nuclear arms race and overturn the US grand strategy of maintaining a balance of power in the Middle East (as in other regions). In short, the US government can easily mobilize the people to accept air strikes to prevent Iran from going nuclear because there is latent animosity toward Iran in both political parties (Chart 9). Chart 9Risk: Iran Overrates US War-Weariness Biden And Putin Court The Middle East Biden And Putin Court The Middle East Another risk is that Iran forges ahead believing that the US and Israel are unwilling or unable to attack and destroy its nuclear program. The western powers might opt for containment like they did with North Korea or they might attack and fail to eliminate the program. This is hard to believe but Iran clearly cannot accept US security guarantees as an alternative to a nuclear deterrent when it seeks regime survival. At the same time Russia is courting Iran, encouraging it to join forces against the American empire. Iran is planning to sell drones to Russia for use in Ukraine, while Russia is maintaining nuclear and defense cooperation with Iran. Putin’s trip highlighted a growing strategic partnership despite a low base of economic ties  (Chart 10).6 Chart 10Russo-Iranian Ties Russo-Iranian Ties Russo-Iranian Ties ​​​​​​ Chart 11West Vulnerable To Middle East War Biden And Putin Court The Middle East Biden And Putin Court The Middle East While Russia does not have an interest in a nuclear-armed Iran, it is not afraid of Iran alone, and it would benefit enormously if the US and Israel got bogged down in a new war that destabilized the Middle East. Oil prices would rise, the US would be distracted, and Europe would be even more vulnerable (Chart 11). Chart 12China's Slowdown And Dependency On Middle East China's Slowdown And Dependency On Middle East China's Slowdown And Dependency On Middle East China’s interest is different. It would prefer for Iran to undermine the West by means of a subtle and long-term game of economic engagement rather than a destabilizing war in the region that would upset China’s already weak economy. However, Beijing will not join with the US against Iran, especially if Iran and Russia are aligned. Ultimately China needs to access Iranian energy reserves via overland routes so that it gains greater supply security vis-à-vis the American navy (Chart 12). Since June 2019, we have maintained 40% odds of a military conflict with Iran. The logic is outlined in Diagram 1, which we have not changed. Conflict can take various forms since the western powers prefer sabotage or cyber-attacks to outright assault. But in the end preventing nuclear weapons may require air strikes – and victory is not at all guaranteed. We are very close to moving to the next branch in Diagram 1, which would imply odds of military conflict rise from 40% to 80%. We are not making that call yet but we are getting nervous. Diagram 1Iran Nuclear Crisis: Decision Tree Biden And Putin Court The Middle East Biden And Putin Court The Middle East Moreover it is the saber rattling around this process – including an extensive Iranian campaign to deter attack – that will disrupt oil distribution and transport sooner rather than later. Bottom Line: The US and Iran could still find diplomatic accommodation to avoid the next step in our decision tree. Therefore we are keeping the odds of war at a subjective 40%. But we have reached a critical juncture. The next step in the process entails a major increase in the odds of air strikes. Putin’s Supply Squeeze Will Continue As we go to press, financial markets are reacting to President Putin’s marginal easing of Russian political pressure on food and energy supplies. First, Putin took steps toward a deal, proposed by Turkish President Erdogan, to allow Ukrainian grain exports to resume from the Black Sea. Second, Putin allowed a partial restart of the Nord Stream 1 natural gas pipeline, after a total cutoff occurred during the regular, annual maintenance period. However, these moves should be kept into perspective. Nord Stream 1 is still operating at only 40% of capacity. Russia reduced the flow by 60% after the EU agreed to impose a near-total ban on Russian oil exports by the end of the year. Russia is imposing pain on the European economy in pursuit of its strategic objectives and will continue to throttle Europe’s natural gas supply. Russia’s aims are as follows: (1) break up European consensus on Russia and prevent a natural gas embargo from being implemented in future (2) pressure Europe into negotiating a ceasefire in Ukraine that legitimizes Russia’s conquests (3) underscore Russia’s new red line against NATO military deployments in Finland and Sweden. Europe, for its part, will continue to diversify its natural gas sources as rapidly as possible to reduce Russia’s leverage. The European Commission is asking countries to decrease their natural gas consumption by 15% from August to March. This will require rationing regardless of Russia’s supply squeeze. The collapse in trust incentivizes Russia to use its leverage while it still has it and Europe to try to take that leverage away. The economic costs are frontloaded, particularly this winter. The same goes for the Turkish proposal to resume grain exports. Russia will continue to blockade Ukraine until it achieves its military objectives. The blockade will be tightened or loosened as necessary to achieve diplomatic goals. Part of the reason Russia invaded in the first place was to seize control of Ukraine’s coast and hold the country’s ports, trade, and economy hostage. Bottom Line: Russia’s relaxation of food and energy flows is not reliable. Flows will wax and wane depending on the status of strategic negotiations with the West. Europe’s economy will continue to suffer from a Russia-induced supply squeeze until Russia achieves a ceasefire in Ukraine. So will emerging markets that depend on grain imports, such as Turkey, Egypt, and Pakistan. Investment Takeaways The critical juncture has arrived for our Iran view. If Iran does not start returning to nuclear compliance soon, then a fateful path of conflict will be embarked upon. The Saudis will not give Biden more oil barrels just yet. But they may end up doing that if global demand holds up and the US reassures them that their regional security needs will be met. First, the path for oil over the next year will depend on the path of global demand. Our view is negative, with Europe heading toward recession, China struggling to stimulate its economy effectively, and the Fed unlikely to achieve a soft landing. Second, the path of conflict with Iran will lead to a higher frequency of oil supply disruptions across the Middle East that will start happening very quickly after the US-Iran talks are pronounced dead. In other words, oil prices will be volatile in a stagflationary environment. In addition, while inflation might roll over for various reasons, it is not likely to occur because of any special large actions by Saudi Arabia. The Saudis are waiting on global cues. Of these, China is the most important. We are booking a 17% gain on our long gold trade as real rates rise and China’s economy deteriorates (Chart 13). This is in line with our Commodity & Energy Strategy, which is also stepping aside on gold for now. Longer term we remain constructive as we see a secular rise in geopolitical risk and persistent inflation problems. Chart 13Book Gains On Gold ... For Now Book Gains On Gold ... For Now Book Gains On Gold ... For Now We are booking an 18% gain on our long European defense / short European tech trade. Falling bond yields will benefit European tech (Chart 14). We remain bullish on European and global defense stocks. Chart 14Book Gains On EU Defense Vs Tech ... For Now Book Gains On EU Defense Vs Tech ... For Now Book Gains On EU Defense Vs Tech ... For Now ​​​​​​ Chart 15Markets Underrate Middle East Geopolitical Risk Biden And Putin Court The Middle East Biden And Putin Court The Middle East ​​​​​ Stay long US equities relative to UAE equities. Middle Eastern geopolitical risk is underrated (Chart 15). Matt Gertken Chief Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1      The White House, “The Jerusalem U.S.-Israel Strategic Partnership Joint Declaration,” July 14, 2022, whitehouse.gov. 2     Israel and the US will remove international peacekeepers from the formerly Egyptian Red Sea islands of Tiran and Sanafir, which clears the way for Saudi Arabia to turn them into tourist destinations. Saudi Arabia also removed its tight airspace restrictions on Israel, enabling civilian Israeli airlines to fly through Saudi airspace on normal basis. Of course, Saudi allowance for Israeli military flights to pass through Saudi airspace would be an important question in any future military operation against Iran. 3     The US has long wanted regional missile defense integration. The Biden administration is proposing “integrated air defense cooperation” that would include Israel as well as the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC). A regional “air and missile defense architecture” would counter drones and missiles from rival states and non-state actors such as Iran and its militant proxies. Simultaneously the Israelis are putting forward the proposed Middle East Air Defense Alliance (MEAD) in meetings with the same GCC nations. Going forward, Iran’s nuclear ambitions will give more impetus to these attempts to cooperate on air defense. 4     This is apparent from the hard line on Iran and the relatively soft line on Russia in the document. Israel is wary of taking too hard of a line against Russia because of its security concerns in Syria where Russian forces are present. See footnote 1 above. 5     Khamenei called for long-term cooperation between Russia and Iran; he justified Russia’s invasion of Ukraine as a defense against NATO encroachment; he called for the removal of the US dollar as the global reserve currency. See “Khamenei: Tehran, Moscow must stay vigilant against Western deception,” Israel Hayom, July 20, 2022, israelhayom.com. 6     Russia’s natural gas champion Gazprom signed an ostensible $40 billion memorandum of understanding with Iran’s National Oil Company to develop gas fields and pipelines. See Nadeen Ebrahim, “Iran and Russia’s friendship is more complicated than it seems,” CNN, July 20, 2022, cnn.com. However, while there are longstanding obstacles to Russo-Iranian cooperation, the West’s tough new sanctions on Russia and EU diversification will make Moscow more willing to invest in Iran. Strategic Themes Open Tactical Positions (0-6 Months) Open Cyclical Recommendations (6-18 Months) Regional Geopolitical Risk Matrix

Executive Summary China's Unemployment Questions From The Road Questions From The Road Over the past week we have been visiting clients along the US west coast. In this report we hit some of the highlights from the most important and frequently asked questions. Xi Jinping is seizing absolute power just as the country’s decades-long property boom turns to bust. He will stimulate the economy but Chinese stimulus is less effective than it used to be. The US and Israel are underscoring their red line against Iranian nuclear weaponization. If Iran does not freeze its nuclear program, the Middle East will begin to unravel again. The UK’s domestic instability is returning, with Scotland threatening to leave the union. Brexit, the pandemic, and inflation make a Scottish referendum a more serious risk than in the past. Shinzo Abe’s assassination makes him a martyr for a vision of Japan as a “normal country” – i.e. one that is not pacifist but capable of defending itself. Japan’s rearmament, like Germany’s, points to the decline of the WWII peace settlement and the return of great power competition. Bottom Line: Investors need a new global balance to be achieved through US diplomacy with Russia, China, and Iran. That is not forthcoming, as the chief nations face instability at home and a stagflationary global economy. Feature The world is becoming less stable as stagflation combines with great power competition. Global uncertainty is through the roof. From a macroeconomic perspective, investors need to know whether central banks can whip inflation without triggering a recession. From a geopolitical perspective, investors need to know whether Russia’s conflict with the West will expand, whether US-China and US-Iran tensions will escalate in a damaging way, and whether domestic political rotations in the US and China this fall will lead to more stable and productive economies. China: What Will Happen At The Communist Party Reshuffle? General Secretary Xi Jinping will cement another five-to-10 years in power while promoting members of his faction into key positions on the Politburo and Politburo Standing Committee. By December Xi will roll out a pro-growth strategy for 2023 and the government will signal that it will start relaxing Covid-19 restrictions. But China’s structural problems ensure that this good news for global growth will only have a fleeting effect. China’s governance is shifting from single-party rule to single-person rule. It is also shifting from commercially focused decentralization to national security focused centralization. Xi has concentrated power in himself, in the party, and in Beijing at the expense of political opponents, the private economy, and outlying regions like Hong Kong, the South China Sea, and Xinjiang. The subordination of Taiwan is the next major project, ensuring that China will ally with Russia and that the US and China cannot repair or deepen their economic partnership. Related Report  Geopolitical StrategyWill China Let 100 Flowers Bloom? Only Briefly. Xi and the Communist Party began centralizing political power and economic control shortly after the Great Recession. At that time it became clear that a painful transition away from export manufacturing and close relations with the United States was necessary. The transition would jeopardize China’s long-term economic, social, political, and geopolitical stability. The Communist Party believed it needed to revive strongman leadership (autocracy) rather than pursuing greater liberalization that would ultimately increase the odds of political revolution (democratization). The Xi administration has struggled to manage the country’s vast debt bubble, given that total debt standing has surged to 287% of GDP. The global pandemic forced the government to launch another large stimulus package, which it then attempted to contain. Corporate and household deleveraging ensued. The property and infrastructure boom of the past three decades has stalled, as the regime has imposed liquidity and capital requirements on banks and property developers to try to avoid a financial crisis. Regulatory tightening occurred in other sectors to try to steer investment into government-approved sectors and reduce the odds of technological advancement fanning social dissent. China’s draconian “zero Covid” policy sought to limit the disease’s toll, improve China’s economic self-reliance, and eliminate the threat of social protest during the year of the twentieth party congress. But it also slammed the brakes on growth. China is highly vulnerable to social instability for both structural and cyclical reasons. Chinese social unrest was our number one “Black Swan” for this year and it is now starting to take shape in the form of angry mortgage owners across the country refusing to make mortgage payments on houses that were pre-purchased but not yet built and delivered (Chart 1). Chart 1China: Mortgage Payment Boycott Questions From The Road Questions From The Road The mortgage payment boycott is important because it is stemming from the outstanding economic and financial imbalance – the property sector – and because it is a form of cross-regional social organization, which the Communist Party will disapprove. There are other social protests emerging, including low-level bank runs, which must be monitored very closely. Local authorities will act quickly to stop the spread of the mortgage boycott. But unhappy homeowners will be a persistent problem due to the decline of the property sector and industry. China’s property sector looks uncomfortably like the American property sector ahead of the 2006-08 bust. Prices for existing homes are falling while new house prices are on the verge of falling (Chart 2). While mortgages only make up 15% of bank assets, and household debt is only 62% of GDP, households are no longer taking on new debt (Chart 3). Chart 2China's Falling Property Prices China's Falling Property Prices China's Falling Property Prices ​​​​​​ Chart 3China's Property Crisis China's Property Crisis China's Property Crisis ​​​​​​ Chart 4China's Unemployment China's Unemployment China's Unemployment Most likely China’s property sector is entering the bust phase that we have long expected – if not, then the reason will be a rapid and aggressive move by authorities to expand monetary and fiscal stimulus and loosen economic restrictions. That process of broad-based easing – “letting 100 flowers bloom” – will not fully get under way until after the party congress, say in December. Unemployment is rising across China as the economy slows, another point of comparison with the United States ahead of the 2008 property collapse (Chart 4). Unemployment is a manipulated statistic so real conditions are likely worse. There is no more important indicator. China’s government will be forced to ease policy, creating a positive impact on global growth in 2023, but the impact will be fleeting. Bottom Line: The underlying debt-deflationary context will prevail before long in China, weighing on global growth and inflation expectations on a cyclical basis. Middle East: Why Did Biden Go And What Will He Get? President Biden traveled to Israel and now Saudi Arabia because he wants Saudi Arabia and the Gulf Arab members of OPEC to increase oil production to reduce gasoline prices at the pump for Americans ahead of the midterm elections (Chart 5). Chart 5Biden Goes To Israel And Saudi Arabia Biden Goes To Israel And Saudi Arabia Biden Goes To Israel And Saudi Arabia True, fears of recession are already weighing on prices, but Biden embarked on this mission before the growth slowdown was fully appreciated and he is not going to lightly abandon the anti-inflation fight before the midterm election. Biden also went because one of his top foreign policy priorities – the renegotiation of the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran – is falling apart. The Iranians do not want to freeze their nuclear program because they want regime survival and security. While Biden is offering a return to the 2015 deal, the conditions that produced the deal are no longer applicable: Russia and China are not cooperating with the US and EU to isolate Iran. Russia is courting Iran, oil prices are high and sanction enforcement is weak (unlike 2015). The Iranians now know, after the Trump administration, that they cannot trust the Americans to give credible security guarantees that will last across parties and administrations. The war in Ukraine also underscores the weakness of diplomatic security guarantees as opposed to a nuclear deterrent. Hence the joint US and Israeli declaration that Iran will never be allowed to obtain nuclear weapons. The good news is that this kind of joint statement is precisely what needed to occur – the underscoring of the red line – to try to change Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s calculus regarding his drive to achieve nuclear breakout. In 2015 Khamenei gave diplomacy a chance to try to improve the economy, stave off social unrest, prepare the way for his eventual leadership succession process, and secure the Islamic Republic. The bad news is that Khamenei probably cannot make the same decision this time, as the hawkish faction now runs his government, the Americans are unreliable, and Russia and China are offering an alternative strategic orientation. The Saudis will pump more oil if necessary to save the global business cycle but not at the beck and call of a US president. The drop in oil prices reduces their urgency. The Americans can reassure the Saudis and Israel as long as the deal with Iran is not going forward. That looks to be the case. But then the US and Israel will have to undertake joint actions to underline their threat to Iran – and Iran will have to threaten to stage attacks across the region so as to deter any attack. Bottom Line: If a US-Iran deal does not materialize at the last minute, Middle Eastern instability will revive and a new source of oil supply constraint will plague the global economy. We continue to believe a US-Iran deal is unlikely, with only 40% odds of happening. Europe: Will Russia Turn Back On The Natural Gas? Russia’s objective in cutting off European natural gas is to inflict a recession on Europe. It wants a better bargaining position on strategic matters. Therefore we assume Russia will continue to squeeze supplies from now through the winter, when European demand rises and Russian leverage will peak. If Russia allows some flow to return, then it will be part of the negotiating process and will not preclude another cutoff before winter. It is possible that Russia is merely giving Europe a warning and will revert back to supplying natural gas. The problem is that Russia’s purpose is to achieve a strategic victory in Ukraine and in negotiations over NATO’s role in the Nordic countries. Russia has not achieved these goals, so natural gas cutoff will likely continue. Russia also hopes that by utilizing its energy leverage – while it still has it – it will bring forward the economic pain of Europe’s transition away from reliance on Russian energy. In that case European countries will experience recession and households will begin to change their view of the situation. European governments will be more likely to change their policies, to become more pragmatic and less confrontational toward Russia. Or European governments will be voted out of power and do the same thing. Other states could join Hungary in saying that Europe should never impose a full natural gas embargo on Russia. Russia would be able to salvage some of its energy trade with Europe over the long run, despite the war in Ukraine and the inevitable European energy diversification. In recent months we highlighted Italy as the weakest link in the European chain and the country most likely to see such a shift in policy occur. Italy’s national unity coalition had lost its reason for being, while the combination of rising bond yields and natural gas prices weighed on the economy. The Italian bond spread over German bunds has long served as our indicator of European political stress – and it is spiking now, forcing the European Central Bank to rush to plan an anti-fragmentation strategy that would theoretically enable it to tighten monetary policy while preventing an Italian debt crisis (Chart 6). The European Union remains unlikely to break up – Russian aggression was always one of our chief arguments for why the EU would stick together. But Italy will undergo a recession and an election (due by June 2023 but that could easily happen this fall), likely producing a new government that is more pragmatic with regard to Russia so as to reduce the energy strain. Chart 6Italy's Crisis Points To EU Divisions On Russia Italy's Crisis Points To EU Divisions On Russia Italy's Crisis Points To EU Divisions On Russia Italy’s political turmoil shows that European states are feeling the energy crisis and will begin to shift policies to reduce the burden on households. Households will lose their appetite for conflict with Russia on behalf of Ukrainians, especially if Russia begins offering a ceasefire after completing its conquest of the Donetsk area. If Russia expands its invasion, then Europe will expand sanctions and the risk of further strategic instability will go up. But most likely Russia will seek to quit while it is ahead and twist Europe’s arm into foisting a ceasefire onto Ukraine. Bottom Line: A change of government in Italy will increase the odds that the EU will engage in diplomacy with Russia in the coming year, if Russia offers, so as to reach a new understanding, restore natural gas flows, and salvage the economy. This would leave NATO enlargement unresolved but a shift in favor of a ceasefire in Ukraine in 2023 would be less negative for European assets and the euro. UK: Who Will Replace Boris Johnson? Last week UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson fell from power and now the Conservative Party is engaging in a leadership competition to replace him. We gave up on Johnson after he survived his no-confidence vote and yet it became clear that he could not recover in popular opinion. The inflation outburst destroyed his premiership and wiped away whatever support he had gained from executing Brexit. In fact it reinforced the faction that believed Brexit was the wrong decision. Going forward the UK will be consumed with domestic political turmoil as the cost of stagflation mounts, and geopolitical turmoil as Scotland attempts to hold a second independence referendum, possibly by October 2023. Global investors should focus primarily on Scotland’s attempt to secede, since the breakup of the United Kingdom would be a momentous historical event and a huge negative shock for pound sterling. While only 44.7% of Scots voted for independence in 2014, now they have witnessed Brexit, Covid-19, and stagflation, producing tailwinds for the Scots nationalist vote (Chart 7). Chart 7Forget Bojo's Exit, Watch Scotland Questions From The Road Questions From The Road There are still major limitations on Scotland exiting, since its national capabilities are limited, it would need to join the European Union, and Spain and possibly others will threaten to veto its membership in the European Union for fear of feeding their own secessionist movements. But any new referendum – including one done without the approval of Westminster – should be taken very seriously by investors. Bottom Line: Johnson’s removal will only marginally improve the Tories’ ability to manage the rebellion brewing in the north. A snap election that brings the Labour Party back into power would have a greater chance of keeping Scotland in the union, although it is not clear that such a snap election will happen in time to affect any Scottish decision. The UK faces economic and political turmoil between now and any referendum and investors should steer clear of the pound. (Though we still favor GBP over eastern European currencies). Britain will remain aggressive toward Russia but its ability to affect the Russian dynamic will fall, leaving the US and EU to decide the fate of Russian relations. Japan: What Is The Significance Of Shinzo Abe’s Assassination? Former Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe was assassinated by a lone fanatic with a handmade gun. The significance of the incident is that Abe will become a martyr for a certain vision of Japan – his vision of Japan, which is that Japan can become a “normal country” that moves beyond the shackles of the guilt of its imperial aggression in World War II. A normal country is one that is economically stable and militarily capable of defending itself – not a pacifist country mired in debt-deflation. Abe stood for domestic reflation and a proactive foreign policy, along with the normalization of the Japanese Self-Defense Forces (JSDF). True, economic policy can become less dovish if necessary to deal with inflation. Some changes at the Bank of Japan may usher in a less dovish shift in monetary policy in particular. But monetary policy cannot become outright hawkish like it was before Abe. And Abe’s fiscal policy was never as loose as it was made out to be, given that he executed several hikes to the consumption tax. Japan’s structural demographic decline and large debt burden will continue to weigh on economic activity whenever real rates and the yen rise. The government will be forced to reflate using monetary and fiscal policy whenever deflation threatens to return. Debt monetization will remain an option for future Japanese governments, even if it is restrained during times of high inflation. Chart 8Shinzo Abe's Legacy Questions From The Road Questions From The Road ​​​​​​​ This is not only because Japanese households will become depressed if deflation is left unchecked but also because economic growth must be maintained in order to sustain the nation’s new and growing national defense budgets. Japan’s growing need for self defense stems from China’s strategic rise, Russia’s aggression, and North Korea’s nuclearization, plus uncertainty about the future of American foreign policy. These trends will not change anytime soon. Indeed the Liberal Democratic Party’s popularity has increased under Abe’s successor, Prime Minister Fumio Kishida, who will largely sustain Abe’s vision. The Diet still has a supermajority in favor of constitutional revision so as to enshrine the self-defense forces (Chart 8). And the de facto policy of rearmament continues even without formal revision. Bottom Line: Any Japanese leader who attempts to promote a hawkish BoJ, and a dovish JSDF, will fail sooner rather than later. The revolving door of prime ministers will accelerate. As Japan’s longest-serving prime minister, Shinzo Abe opened up the reliable pathway, which is that of a dovish BoJ and a hawkish foreign policy. This is important for the world, as well as Japan, because a more hawkish Japan will increase China’s fears of strategic containment. The frozen conflicts in Asia will continue to thaw, perpetuating the secular rise in geopolitical risk. We remain long JPY-KRW, since the BoJ may adjust in the short term and Chinese stimulus is still compromised, but that trade is on downgrade watch. Investment Takeaways Russia’s energy cutoff is aimed at pushing Europe into recession so as to force policy changes or government changes in Europe that will improve Russia’s position at the negotiating table over Ukraine, NATO, and other strategic disputes. Hence Russia is unlikely to increase the natural gas flow until it believes it has achieved its strategic aims and multiple veto players in the EU will prevent the EU from ever implementing a full-blown natural gas embargo. Chinese stimulus cannot be fully effective until it relaxes Covid-19 restrictions, likely beginning in December or next year when Xi Jinping uses his renewed political capital to try to stabilize the economy. However, China’s government powers alone are insufficient to prevent the debt-deflationary tendency of the property bust. The Middle East faces rising geopolitical tensions that will take markets by surprise with additional energy supply constraints. The implication is continued oil volatility given that global growth is faltering. Once global demand stabilizes, the Middle East’s turmoil will add to existing oil supply constraints to create new price pressures. The odds are not very high of the Federal Reserve achieving a “soft landing” in the context of a global energy shock and a stagflationary Europe and China.   Matt Gertken Chief Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com ​​​​​​​ Strategic Themes Open Tactical Positions (0-6 Months) Open Cyclical Recommendations (6-18 Months) Regional Geopolitical Risk Matrix "Batting Average": Geopolitical Strategy Trades () Section II: Special (EDIT this Header) Section III: Geopolitical Calendar

Executive Summary EU Embargoes Russian Oil Energy Cutoff Continues (GeoRisk Update) Energy Cutoff Continues (GeoRisk Update) The EU imposed an embargo on 90% of Russian oil imports, which will provoke retaliation. Russia will squeeze Europe’s economy ahead of critical negotiations over the coming 6-12 months. Russian gains on the battlefield in Ukraine point to a ceasefire later, but not yet – and Russia will need to retaliate against NATO enlargement. The Middle East and North Africa face instability and oil disruptions due to US-Iran tensions and Russian interference. China’s autocratic shift is occurring amid an economic slowdown and pandemic. Social unrest and internal tensions will flare. China will export uncertainty and stagflation.  Inflation is causing disparate effects in South Asia – instability in Pakistan and Sri Lanka, and fiscal populism in India.   Asset Initiation Date Return Long Brazilian Financials / Indian Equities (Closed) Feb 10/22 22.5%  Bottom Line: Markets still face three geopolitical hurdles: Russian retaliation; Middle Eastern instability; Chinese uncertainty. Feature Global equities bounced back 6.1% from their trough on May 12 as investors cheered hints of weakening inflation and questioned the bearish consensus. BCA’s Global Investment Strategy correctly called the equity bounce. However, as BCA’s Geopolitical Strategy service, we see several sources of additional bad news. Throughout the Ukraine conflict we have highlighted two fundamental factors to ascertain regarding the ongoing macroeconomic impact: Will the war cut off the Russia-EU energy trade? Will the war broaden beyond Ukraine? Chart 1Russian-Exposed Assets Will Suffer More Russian-Exposed Assets Will Suffer More Russian-Exposed Assets Will Suffer More In this report we update our views on these two critical questions. The takeaway is that the geopolitical outlook is still flashing red. The US dollar will remain strong and currencies exposed to Russia and geopolitical risk will remain weak (Chart 1). In addition, China’s politics will continue to produce uncertainty and negative surprises this year. Taken together, investors should remain defensive for now but be ready to turn positive when the market clears the hurdles we identify. The fate of the business cycle hangs in the balance.  Energy Ties Eroding … Russia Will Retaliate Over Oil Embargo Chart 2AEU Embargoes Russian Oil Energy Cutoff Continues (GeoRisk Update) Energy Cutoff Continues (GeoRisk Update) Europe is diversifying from Russian oil and natural gas. The European Union adopted a partial oil embargo on Russia that will cut oil imports by 90% by the end of 2022. It also removed Sberbank from the SWIFT banking communications network and slapped sanctions on companies that insure shipments of Russian crude. The sanctions will cut off all of Europe’s seaborne oil imports from Russia as well as major pipeline imports, except the Southern Druzhba pipeline. The EU made an exception for landlocked eastern European countries heavily dependent on Russian pipeline imports – namely Hungary, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, and Bulgaria (Chart 2A).  Focus on the big picture. Germany changed its national policy to reduce Russian energy dependency for the sake of national security. From Chancellors Willy Brandt to Angela Merkel, Germany pursued energy cooperation and economic engagement as a means of lowering the risk of war with Russia. Ostpolitik worked in the Cold War, so when Russia seized Crimea in 2014, Merkel built the Nord Stream 2 pipeline. But Merkel’s policy failed to persuade Russia that economic cooperation is better than military confrontation – rather it emboldened President Putin, who viewed Europe as divided and corruptible. Chart 2BRussia Squeezes EU’s Natural Gas Energy Cutoff Continues (GeoRisk Update) Energy Cutoff Continues (GeoRisk Update) Russia’s regime is insecure and feels threatened by the US and NATO. Russia believed that if it invaded Ukraine, the Europeans would maintain energy relations for the sake of preserving overall strategic stability. Instead Germany and other European states began to view Russia as irrational and aggressive and hence a threat to their long-term security. They imposed a coal ban, now an oil ban the end of this year, and a natural gas ban by the end of 2027, all formalized under the recently announced RePowerEU program. Russia retaliated by declaring it would reduce natural gas exports to the Netherlands and probably Denmark, after having already cut off Finland, Poland, and Bulgaria (Chart 2B). As a pretext Russia points to its arbitrary March demand that states pay for gas in rubles rather than in currencies written in contracts. This ruble payment scheme is being enforced on a country-by-country basis against those Russia deems “unfriendly,” i.e. those that join NATO, adopt new sanctions, provide massive assistance to Ukraine, or are otherwise adverse. Chart 3Russia Actively Cutting Gas Flows Russia Actively Cutting Gas Flows Russia Actively Cutting Gas Flows Russia and Ukraine are already reducing natural gas exports through the Ukraine and Turkstream pipelines while the Yamal pipeline has been empty since May – and it is only a matter of time before flows begin to fall in the Nord Stream 1 pipeline to Germany (Chart 3). German government and industry are preparing to ration natural gas (to prioritize household needs) and revive 15 coal plants if necessary. Europe is attempting to rebuild stockpiles for the coming winter, when Russian willingness and capability to squeeze natural gas flows will reach a peak. The big picture is demonstrated by game theory in Diagram 1. The optimal situation for both Russia and the EU is to maintain energy exports for as long as possible, so that Russia has revenues to wage its war and Europe avoids a recession while transitioning away from Russian supplies (bottom right quadrant, each side receives four points). The problem is that this solution is not an equilibrium because either side can suffer a sudden shock if the other side betrays the tacit agreement and stops buying or selling (bottom left and top right quadrants). Diagram 1EU-Russia Standoff: What Does Game Theory Say? Energy Cutoff Continues (GeoRisk Update) Energy Cutoff Continues (GeoRisk Update) The equilibrium – the decision sets in which both Russia and the EU are guaranteed to lose the least – is a situation in which both states reduce energy trade immediately. Europe needs to cut off the revenues that fuel the Russian war machine while Russia needs to punish and deter Europe now while it still has massive energy leverage (top left quadrant, circled). Once Europe diversifies away, Russia loses its leverage. If Europe does not diversify immediately, Russia can punish it severely by cutting off energy before it is prepared.   Russian energy weaponization is especially useful ahead of any ceasefire talks in Ukraine. Russia aims for Ukrainian military neutrality and a permanently weakened Ukrainian state. To that end it is seizing territory for the Luhansk and Donetsk People’s Republics, seizing the southern coastline and strategic buffer around Crimea, and controlling the mouth of the Dnieper river so that Ukraine is forever hobbled (Map 1). Once it achieves these aims it will want to settle a ceasefire that legitimizes its conquests. But Ukraine will wish to continue the fight. Map 1Russian Invasion Of Ukraine, 2022 Energy Cutoff Continues (GeoRisk Update) Energy Cutoff Continues (GeoRisk Update) Russia will need leverage over Europe to convince the EU to lean on Ukraine to agree to a ceasefire. Something similar occurred in 2014-15 when Russia collaborated with Germany and France to foist the Minsk Protocols onto Ukraine. If Russia keeps energy flowing to EU, the EU not only gets a smooth energy transition away from Russia but also gets to keep assisting Ukraine’s military effort. Whereas if Russia imposes pain on the EU ahead of ceasefire talks, the EU has greater interest in settling a ceasefire. Finally, given Russia’s difficulties on the battlefield, its loss of European patronage, and potential NATO enlargement on its borders, Moscow is highly likely to open a “new front” in its conflict with the West. Josef Stalin, for example, encouraged Kim Il Sung to invade South Korea in 1950. Today Russia’s options lie in the Middle East and North Africa – the regions where Europe turns for energy alternatives. Not only Libya and Algeria – which are both inherently fertile ground for Russia to sow instability –  but also Iran and the broader Middle East, where a tenuous geopolitical balance is already eroding due to a lack of strategic understanding between the US and Iran. Russia’s capabilities are limited but it likely retains enough influence to ignite existing powder kegs in these areas.   Bottom Line: Investors still face a few hurdles from the Ukraine war. First, the EU’s expanding energy embargo and Russian retaliation. Second, instability in the Middle East and North Africa. Hence energy price pressures will remain elevated in the short term and kill more demand, thus pushing the EU and the rest of the world toward stagflation or even recession. War Contained To Ukraine So Far … But Russia To Retaliate Over NATO Enlargement At present Russia is waging a full-scale assault on eastern and southern Ukraine, where about half of Donetsk awaits a decision (Map 2). If Russia emerges victorious over Donetsk in the summer or fall then it can declare victory and start negotiating a ceasefire. This timeline assumes that its economic circumstances are sufficiently straitened to prevent a campaign to the Moldovan border.1   Map 2Russia May Declare Victory If It Conquers The Rest Of Donetsk Energy Cutoff Continues (GeoRisk Update) Energy Cutoff Continues (GeoRisk Update) There are still ways for the Ukraine war to spill over into neighboring areas. For example, the Black Sea is effectively a Russian lake at the moment, which prevents Ukrainian grain from reaching global markets where food prices are soaring. Eventually the western maritime powers will need to attempt to restore freedom of navigation. However, Russia is imposing a blockade on Ukraine, has more at stake there than other powers, and can take greater risks. The US and its allies will continue to provide Ukraine with targeting information against Russian ships but this assistance could eventually provoke a larger naval conflict. Separately, the US has agreed to provide Ukraine with the M142 High Mobility Artillery Rocket System (HIMARS), which could lead to attacks on Russian territory that would prompt a ferocious Russian reaction. Even assuming that the Ukraine war remains contained, Russia’s strategic conflict with the US and the West will remain unresolved and Moscow will be eager to save face. Russian retaliation will occur not only on account of European energy diversification but also on account of NATO enlargement. Finland and Sweden are attempting to join NATO and as such the West is directly repudiating the Putin regime’s chief strategic demand for 22 years. Finland shares an 830 mile border with Russia, adding insult to injury. The result will be another round of larger military tensions that go beyond Ukraine and prolong this year’s geopolitical risk and uncertainty. Russia’s initial response to Finland’s and Sweden’s joint application to NATO was to dismiss the threat they pose while drawing a new red line. Rather than forbidding NATO enlargement, Russia now demands that no NATO forces be deployed to these two states. This demand, which Putin and other officials expressed, may or may not amount to a genuine Russian policy change. Russia’s initial responses should be taken with a grain of salt because Turkey is temporarily blocking Finland’s and Sweden’s applications, so Russia has no need to respond to NATO enlargement yet. But the true test will come when and if the West satisfies Turkey’s grievances and Turkey moves to admit the new members. If enlargement becomes inevitable, Russia will respond. Russia will feel that its national security is fundamentally jeopardized by Sweden overturning two centuries of neutrality and Finland reversing the policy of “Finlandization” that went so far in preventing conflict during the Cold War. Chart 4Military Balances Stacking Up Against Russia Energy Cutoff Continues (GeoRisk Update) Energy Cutoff Continues (GeoRisk Update) Russia’s military options are limited. Russia has little ability to expand the war and fight on multiple fronts judging by the army’s recent performance in Ukraine and the Red Army’s performance in the Winter War of 1939. This point can be illustrated by taking the military balance of Russia and its most immediate adversaries, which add up to about half of Russian military strength even apart from NATO (Chart 4). Russian armed forces already demonstrated some pragmatism in April by withdrawing from Kyiv and focusing on more achievable war aims. Unless President Putin turns utterly reckless and the Russian state fails to restrain him, Russia will opt for defensive measures and strategic deterrence rather than a military offensive in the Baltics. Hence Russia’s military response will come in the form of threats rather than outright belligerence. However, these threats will probably include military and nuclear actions that will raise alarm bells across Europe and the United States. President Dmitri Medvedev has already warned of the permanent deployment of nuclear missiles in the Kaliningrad exclave.2 This statement points to only the most symbolic option of a range of options that will increase deterrence and elevate the fear of war. Otherwise Russia’s retaliation will consist of squeezing global energy supply, as discussed above, including by opening a new front in the Middle East and North Africa. Instability should be expected as a way of constraining Europe and distracting America. Higher energy prices may or may not convince the EU to negotiate better terms with Russia but they will sow divisions within and among the allies. Ultimately Russia is highly unlikely to sacrifice its credibility by failing to retaliate for the combination of energy embargo and NATO enlargement on its borders. Since its military options are becoming constrained (at least its rational ones), its economic and asymmetrical options will grow in importance. The result will be additional energy supply constraints. Bottom Line: Even assuming that the war does not spread beyond Ukraine – likely but not certain – global financial markets face at least one more period of military escalation with Russia. This will likely include significant energy cutoffs and saber-rattling – even nuclear threats – over NATO enlargement.   China’s Political Situation Has Not Normalized China continues to suffer from a historic confluence of internal and external political risk that will cause negative surprises for investors. Temporary improvements in government policy or investor sentiment – centered on a relaxation of “Zero Covid” lockdowns in major cities and a more dovish regulatory tone against the tech giants – will likely be frustrated, at least until after a more dovish government stance can be confirmed in the wake of the twentieth national party congress in October or November this year. At that event, Chinese President Xi Jinping is likely to clinch another ten years in power and complete the transformation of China’s governance from single-party rule to single-person rule. This reversion to autocracy will generate additional market-negative developments this year. It has already embedded a permanently higher risk premium in Chinese financial assets because it increases the odds of policy mistakes, international aggression, and ultimately succession crisis. The most successful Asian states chose to democratize and expand free markets and capitalism when they reached a similar point of economic development and faced the associated sociopolitical challenges. But China is choosing the opposite path for the sake of national security. Investors have seen the decay of Russia’s economy under Putin’s autocracy and would be remiss not to upgrade the odds of similarly negative outcomes in China over the long run as a result of Xi’s autocracy, despite the many differences between the two countries. China’s situation is more difficult than that of the democratic Asian states because of its reviving strategic rivalry with the United States. US Secretary of State Antony Blinken recently unveiled President Biden’s comprehensive China policy. He affirmed that the administration views China as the US’s top strategic competitor over the long run, despite the heightened confrontation with Russia.3 The Biden administration has not eased the Trump administration’s tariffs or punitive measures on China. It is unlikely to do so during a midterm election year when protectionist dynamics prevail – especially given that the Xi administration will be in the process of reestablishing autocracy, and possibly repressing social unrest, at the very moment Americans go to the polls. Re-engagement with China is also prohibited because China is strengthening its strategic bonds with Russia. President Biden has repeatedly implied that the US would defend Taiwan in any conflict with China. These statements are presented as gaffes or mistakes but they are in fact in keeping with historical US military actions threatening counter-attack during the three historic Taiwan Strait crises. The White House quickly walks back these comments to reassure China that the US does not support Taiwanese independence or intend to trigger a war with China. The result is that the US is using Biden’s gaffe-prone personality to reemphasize the hard edge (rather than the soft edge) of the US’s policy of “strategic ambiguity” on Taiwan. US policy is still ambiguous but ambiguity includes the possibility that a president might order military action to defend Taiwan. US attempts to increase deterrence and avoid a Ukraine scenario are threatening for China, which will view the US as altering the status quo and penalizing China for Russia’s actions. Beijing resumed overflights of Taiwan’s air defense identification zone in the wake of Biden’s remarks as well as the decision of the US to send Senator Tammy Duckworth to Taiwan to discuss deeper economic and defense ties. Consider the positioning of US aircraft carrier strike groups as an indicator of the high level of strategic tensions. On January 18, 2022, as Russia amassed military forces on the Ukrainian border – and the US and NATO rejected its strategic demands – the US had only one publicly acknowledged  aircraft carrier in the Mediterranean (the USS Harry Truman) whereas it had at least five US carriers in East Asia. On February 24, the day of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the US had at least four of these carriers in Asia. Even today the US has at least four carriers in the Pacific compared to at least two in Europe – one of which, notably, is in the Baltics to deter Russia from attacking Finland and Sweden (Map 3). The US is warning China not to take advantage of the Ukraine war by staging a surprise attack on Taiwan. Map 3Amid Ukraine War, US Deters China From Attacking Taiwan Energy Cutoff Continues (GeoRisk Update) Energy Cutoff Continues (GeoRisk Update) Of course, strategic tensions are perennial, whereas what investors are most concerned about is whether China can secure its economic recovery. The latest data are still disappointing. Credit growth continues to falter as the private sector struggles with a deteriorating demographic and macroeconomic outlook (Chart 5). The credit impulse has entered positive territory, when local government bonds are included, reflecting government stimulus efforts. But it is still negative when excluding local governments. And even the positive measure is unimpressive, having ticked back down in April (Chart 6). Chart 5Credit Growth Falters Amid Economic Transition Credit Growth Falters Amid Economic Transition Credit Growth Falters Amid Economic Transition Chart 6Silver Lining: Credit Impulse Less Negative Silver Lining: Credit Impulse Less Negative Silver Lining: Credit Impulse Less Negative Bottom Line: Further monetary and fiscal easing will come in China, a source of good news for global investors next year if coupled with a broader policy shift in favor of business, but the effects will be mixed this year due to Covid policy and domestic politics. Taken together with a European energy crunch and Middle Eastern oil supply disruptions, China’s stimulus is not a catalyst for a sustainable global equity market rally this year. South Asia: Inflation Hammers Sri Lanka And Pakistan Since 2020 we have argued that the global pandemic would result in a new wave of supply pressures and global social unrest. High inflation is blazing a trail of destruction in emerging markets, notably in South Asia, where per capita incomes are low and political institutions often fragile. Chart 7South Asia: Surging Inflation Energy Cutoff Continues (GeoRisk Update) Energy Cutoff Continues (GeoRisk Update) Sri Lanka has been worst affected (Chart 7). Inflation surged to an eye-watering 34% in April  and is expected to rise further. Surging inflation has affected Sri Lanka disproportionately because its macroeconomic and political fundamentals were weak to begin with. The tourism-dependent Sri Lankan economy suffered a body blow from terrorist attacks in 2019 and the pandemic in 2020-21. Then 2022 saw a power struggle between Sri Lanka’s President Gotabaya Rajapaksa and members of the national assembly including Prime Minister (PM) Mahinda Rajapaksa. The crisis hit a crescendo when the country defaulted on external debt obligations last month. These events weigh on Sri Lanka’s ability to transition from a long civil war (1983-2009) to a path of sustained economic development. While the political crisis has seemingly stabilized following the appointment of new Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe, we remain bearish on a strategic time horizon. This is mainly because the new PM is unlikely to bring about structural solutions for Sri Lanka’s broken economy. Moreover, Sri Lanka holds more than $50 billion of foreign debt, or 62% of GDP. Another country that has been dealing with political instability alongside high inflation in South Asia is Pakistan, where inflation hit a three-year high in April (see Chart 7 above). The latest twist in Pakistan’s never-ending cycle of political uncertainty comes from the ousted Prime Minister Imran Khan. The former PM, who commands an unusual popular support group due to his fame as a cricketer prior to entering politics, is demanding fresh elections and otherwise threatening to hold mass protests. Pakistan’s new coalition government and Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, who came to power amid parliamentary intrigues, are refusing elections and ultimatums. From a structural perspective Pakistan is characterized by a weak economy and an unusually influential military. Now it faces high inflation and rising food prices – indeed it is one of the countries that is most dangerously exposed to the Russia-Ukraine war as it depends on these two for over 70% of its grain imports. Bottom Line: MSCI Sri Lanka has underperformed the MSCI EM index by 58.3% this year to date. Pakistan has underperformed the same index by 41.6% over the same period. Against this backdrop, we remain strategic sellers of both bourses. Instability in these countries is also one  of the factors behind our strategic assessment of India as a country with a growing domestic policy consensus. South Asia: India’s Fiscal Populism And Geopolitics Inflation is less rampant in India, although still troublesome. Consumer prices nearly jumped to an 8-year high in April (see Chart 7). With a loaded state election calendar due over the next 12-18 months, the jump in inflation naturally triggered a series of mitigating policy responses. Ban On Wheat Exports: India produces 14% of the world’s wheat and 11% of grains, and exports 5% and 7%, respectively. India’s exports could make a large profit in the context of global shortages. But Prime Minister Narendra Modi is entering into the political end of the business cycle, with key state elections due that will have an impact on the ruling party’s political standing two years before the next federal election. He fears political vulnerability if exports continue amid price pressures at home. The emphasis on food security is typical but also bespeaks a lack of commitment to economic reform. Chart 8India's Real Interest Rates Fall India's Real Interest Rates Fall India's Real Interest Rates Fall Surprise Rate Hikes: The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) increased the policy repo rate by 40 basis points at an unscheduled meeting on May 4, thereby implementing its first rate hike since August 2018. With real rates in India lower than those in China or Brazil (Chart 8), the RBI will be forced to expedite its planned rate hikes through 2022. Tax Cuts On Fuel: India’s central government also announced steep cuts in excise duty on fuel. This is another populist measure that reduces political pressures but fails to encourage the private sector to adjust.  These measures will help rein in inflation but the rate hikes will weigh on economic growth while the tax cuts will add to India’s fiscal deficit. Indeed, India is resorting to fiscal populism with key state elections looming. Geopolitical risk is less of a concern for India – indeed the Ukraine war has strengthened its bargaining position. In the short run, India benefits from the ability to buy arms and especially cheap oil from Russia while the EU imposes an embargo. But over the long run its economy and security can be strengthened by greater interest from the US and its allies, recently highlighted by the fourth meeting of the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (Quad) and the launch of the US’s Indo-Pacific Economic Framework (IPEF). These initiatives are modest but they highlight the US’s need to replace China with India and ASEAN over time, a trend that no US administration can reverse now because of the emerging Russo-Chinese strategic alliance. At the same time, the Quad underscores India’s maritime interests and hence the security benefits India can gain from aligning its economy and navy with the other democracies. Bottom Line: Fiscal populism in the context of high commodity prices is negative for Indian equities. However, our views on Russia, the Middle East, and China all point to a sharper short-term spike in commodity prices that ultimately drives the world economy deeper into stagflation or recession. Therefore we are booking a 22.5% profit on our tactical decision to go long Brazilian financials relative to Indian equities.   Matt Gertken Chief Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com   Ritika Mankar, CFA Editor/Strategist ritika.mankar@bcaresearch.com   Chart 9Russia: GeoRisk Indicator Russia: GeoRisk Indicator Russia: GeoRisk Indicator Chart 10Other Measures Of Russian Geopolitical Risk Other Measures Of Russian Geopolitical Risk Other Measures Of Russian Geopolitical Risk Chart 11China: GeoRisk Indicator China: GeoRisk Indicator China: GeoRisk Indicator Chart 12United Kingdom: GeoRisk Indicator United Kingdom: GeoRisk Indicator United Kingdom: GeoRisk Indicator Chart 13Germany: GeoRisk Indicator Germany: GeoRisk Indicator Germany: GeoRisk Indicator Chart 14France: GeoRisk Indicator France: GeoRisk Indicator France: GeoRisk Indicator Chart 15Italy: GeoRisk Indicator Italy: GeoRisk Indicator Italy: GeoRisk Indicator Chart 16Canada: GeoRisk Indicator Canada: GeoRisk Indicator Canada: GeoRisk Indicator Chart 17Spain: GeoRisk Indicator Spain: GeoRisk Indicator Spain: GeoRisk Indicator Chart 18Australia: GeoRisk Indicator Australia: GeoRisk Indicator Australia: GeoRisk Indicator Chart 19Taiwan: GeoRisk Indicator Taiwan: GeoRisk Indicator Taiwan: GeoRisk Indicator Chart 20Korea: GeoRisk Indicator Korea: GeoRisk Indicator Korea: GeoRisk Indicator Chart 21Turkey: GeoRisk Indicator Turkey: GeoRisk Indicator Turkey: GeoRisk Indicator Chart 22South Africa: GeoRisk Indicator South Africa: GeoRisk Indicator South Africa: GeoRisk Indicator Chart 23Brazil: GeoRisk Indicator Brazil: GeoRisk Indicator Brazil: GeoRisk Indicator   Footnotes 1     Recent diplomatic flaps between core European leaders and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky reflect Ukraine’s fear that Europe will negotiate a “separate peace” with Russia, i.e. accept Russian territorial conquests in exchange for economic relief. 2     Dmitri Medvedev explicitly states ‘there can be no more talk of any nuclear-free status for the Baltic - the balance must be restored’ in warning Finland and Sweden joining NATO. Medvedev is suggesting that nuclear weapons will be placed in this area where Russia has its Kaliningrad exclave sandwiched between Poland and Lithuania. Guy Faulconbridge, ‘Russia warns of nuclear, hypersonic deployment if Sweden and Finland join NATO’, April 14, 2022, Reuters. 3    See Antony J Blinken, Secretary of State, ‘The Administration’s Approach to the People’s Republic of China’, The George Washington University, Washington D.C., May 26, 2022, state.gov. Additionally, see President Joe Biden’s remarks on China and getting involved military to defend Taiwan in a joint press conference with Japan’s Prime Minister Kishida Fumio. ‘Remarks by President Biden and Prime Minister Kishida Fumio of Japan in Joint Press Conference’, Akasaka Palace, Tokyo, Japan, May 23, 2022, whitehouse.gov.   Strategic Themes Open Tactical Positions (0-6 Months) Open Cyclical Recommendations (6-18 Months) Regional Geopolitical Risk Matrix Section III: Geopolitical Calendar

Executive Summary Allies Still Have Faith In USD Allies Still Have Faith In USD Allies Still Have Faith In USD The Biden administration’s use of sanctions has prompted market speculation about the longevity of the dollar. Yet the DXY has hit 100 and could break out, in the context of rising interest rates and safe-haven demand. The US’s increasingly frequent recourse to economic sanctions is a sign of growing foreign policy challenges. US rivals will continue to diversify away from dollar-denominated reserves. However, from a big picture point of view, there is no clear case that the dollar suffers from US sanctions. When global growth reaccelerates, the dollar can weaken. But until then it will remain resilient. Recommendation (Tactical) Inception Level Inception Date Return Long DXY 96.19 23-FEB-22 5.8% Bottom Line: Tactically stay long DXY and defensives over cyclicals. Feature The US’s aggressive use of sanctions against Russia, in response to its invasion of Ukraine, has prompted market speculation about the future of the global financial and monetary system. Related Report  US Political StrategyBiden's Foreign Policy And The Midterms               It is helpful to begin with facts – what we really know – before launching into grandiose predictions for the future. For example, while some analysts are predicting the demise of the US dollar’s position as the leading reserve currency, so far global investors have bid up the dollar in the face of rising policy uncertainty (Chart 1). In this report we conduct a short overview of US sanctions policy and draw a few simple investment conclusions. Chart 1US Political Risk And The Dollar US Political Risk And The Dollar US Political Risk And The Dollar US Extra-Territorialism Not Yet Hurting The USD The DXY is now trading at 101.2, above the psychological threshold of 100, suggesting that it could break out above its 2016 102.2 peak. The drivers are an expected sharp rise in real interest rates, in both absolute and relative terms, as the Federal Reserve starts on a rate hike cycle that is expected to add 225 basis points to the Fed funds rate this year alone to combat core inflation of 6.5%. This monetary backdrop must be combined with extreme global political and economic instability to explain the dollar’s potential breakout. The global situation is growing less stable, as EU-Russia energy trade breaks down while China imposes lockdowns to stop the spread of Covid-19. Over the past twenty years, the US has struggled to maintain its global leadership. Washington became distracted by wars in the Middle East and South Asia, a national property market crash and financial crisis, and a spike in political polarization and populism. The US public grew war-weary, while the US faced growing challenges from large and powerful nations that it could not confront militarily. Therefore US policymakers turned to economic tools to try to achieve their objectives: namely sanctions but also tariffs and export controls. Many economists and political scientists have warned that the US’s expanding use of economic sanctions – and broader trend of international, extra-territorial, law enforcement – would drive other countries to sell the US dollar and buy other assets, so as to reduce their vulnerability to US tools. This reasoning is sound, as we can see with Russia, which has reduced its dollar-denominated foreign exchange reserves from 41% to 16% since 2016, while increasing its gold holdings from 15% to 22% over the same period. Other major countries vulnerable to US sanctions could follow in Russia’s footsteps. However, so far, the dollar is not suffering excessively from such moves. On the contrary it is rising. The US started using sanctions aggressively with North Korea in 2005, Iran in 2010, and Russia since 2012. The dollar has fluctuated based on other factors, namely rising when the global commodity and industrial cycle was falling (Chart 2). Chart 2TWUSD And DXY Since 2000 TWUSD And DXY Since 2000 TWUSD And DXY Since 2000 Sanctions are a limited prism through which to examine the dollar. But if there is any observable effect of the US’s turn toward sanctions against major players like Russia in 2012 and China in 2018, it is that it has boosted the dollar rather than hurt it. Obviously that trend could change someday. But for now, as the Ukraine war dramatically heightens the US struggle with its rivals, investors should observe that the dollar is on the verge of a breakout. If the dollar continues to rise, it suggests that the US’s structural turn toward more aggressive economic and financial sanctions is not negative for the dollar. It may be neutral or positive. Cyclically the trade-weighted dollar is nowhere near its 2020 peak and could still fall short of that peak, especially if global tensions subside. But the collapse in the euro has caused the DXY to break above its 2020 peak already. Bottom Line: Stay tactically long DXY while watching whether it can break sustainably above 100 to determine whether our cyclically neutral view should be upgraded. US Sanctions On North Korea In this century, the US began to turn more aggressive in its use of sanctions when it confronted the “Axis of Evil” following the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. North Korea withdrew from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in 2003 and began to pursue a nuclear and ballistic missile program more intently. The US responded by levying serious sanctions on that state beginning in 2005. Gradually tougher US sanctions never caused a change in the North Korean regime or foreign policy. On the contrary North Korea achieved nuclear weaponization and is today outlining an expansive nuclear doctrine.  US sanctions on North Korea were never going to drive global macro trends. However, they could have had an impact on South Korean trends. Initially none of the US sanctions reversed the dollar’s decline against the Korean won. After the global financial crisis in 2008, when the dollar began an uptrend against the won, we observe periods of significant new sanctions in which the won rises and the dollar falls (Chart 3, top panel). The same can be said for the outperformance of US equities relative to South Korean equities – if sanctions had any impact, they simply reinforced the flight to US assets in a globally disinflationary context. The trend was mirrored within the US equity market by the rise of tech versus industrials (Chart 3, bottom panel). Chart 3US Sanctions On North Korea US Sanctions On North Korea US Sanctions On North Korea Since Covid-19, the outperformance of US tech is now being overturned by high inflation, which has triggered a vicious selloff in tech. In 2022, global growth is slowing, stagflation is taking shape, and the odds of a recession are rising. Stagflation is negative for both industrials and tech, but more so tech. However, South Korea is still suffering from a deteriorating global macro and geopolitical backdrop, as globalization falters, US-China competition rises, and the US fails to contain North Korean ambitions. Sanctions are a symptom rather than a cause.  Bottom Line: US sanctions on North Korea pose no threat to the US dollar. Tactically US industrials can continue to outperform tech but both sectors will suffer in a stagflationary context. US Sanctions On Venezuela The US has slapped sanctions on Venezuela since the early 2000s but these sanctions kicked into high gear in 2015 after President Nicolas Maduro took power and eliminated the last vestiges of democratic and constitutional order. The US recognized the opposition as the legitimate government so sanctions relief will not be easy or convenient. Sanctions have not changed the regime’s behavior, but the regime has all but collapsed and major changes could happen sooner than people expect. Moreover any short-term sanction relief prompted by high oil prices will not be sustainable: the Republican Party will oppose it, hence private US corporations will doubt its durability, and Venezuela’s failing oil industry cannot be revived quickly anyway (Chart 4, top panel).    The US has strong relations with Venezuela’s neighbor Colombia. Yet Colombia faces the greatest economic and security risks from Venezuelan instability. The US dollar vastly outstripped the Colombian peso over the past decade, consistent with the US energy sector’s underperformance (Chart 4, bottom panel). Chart 4US Sanctions On Venezuela US Sanctions On Venezuela US Sanctions On Venezuela With Covid-19, this trend reversed because of the global energy squeeze and inflationary environment. The implication was positive for the Colombian peso as well as global (and US) energy sector relative performance. But the peso only marginally improved against the dollar, while US energy outperformance is now stretched.  Bottom Line: Energy sector still enjoys macro tailwinds but it is no longer clear that US energy stocks will outperform the broad market for much longer. Favor energy by staying long US energy small caps versus large caps. Also stay long oil and gas transportation and storage sub-sector relative to the broad market. The Biden administration is unlikely to give sanction relief to Venezuela. If it does, it will be ineffective at reducing oil prices in the short term. Either way, there will be little impact on the US dollar. US Sanctions On Iran US policy toward Iran is critical to global stability and energy prices in 2022 and the coming years. US sanctions did not change Iran’s behavior alone, but in league with the P5+1 (the UK, France, China, Russia, plus Germany) sanctions forced Iran to accept limit on its nuclear program in 2015. However, the Trump administration withdrew from that agreement and imposed “maximum pressure” sanctions on Iran in 2018, leading to a sharp depreciation in the market exchange rate of the Iranian toman (Chart 5, top panel). The Saudi Arabian riyal, by contrast, is pegged to the dollar and remains steady except when oil prices collapse (Chart 5, middle panel). The Saudis still rely on the Americans for national security so they are unlikely to abandon the dollar, though they may marginally diversify their foreign exchange reserves. The Biden administration wants to rejoin the 2015 deal but first is trying to extract concessions from Iran. Iran feels limited pressure: while its currency is still weak and inflation high, Iran has not succumbed to social unrest. Iranian oil production and exports are rising amid global high prices (Chart 5, bottom panel). Ultimately Iran wants to continue to advance its nuclear program in line with the North Korean strategy. Hence Biden can rejoin the deal unilaterally if he wants to avoid Middle Eastern instability ahead of the midterm elections. But it would be a short-term, stop-gap agreement and the reduction in oil prices would be fleeting. By contrast, if Biden fails to lift Iran’s sanctions, then the risk of oil disruptions from the Middle East goes way up. Tactically investors should expect upside risks to the oil price, but that would kill more demand and weigh on global growth. Over the past decade the outperformance of US equities relative to Saudi and Emirati equities falls in line with the outperformance of US tech relative to energy sectors. As mentioned, this trend has largely run its course, although it can go further in the short run. But there is a broader trend related to growth versus value styles. The UAE’s stock market is heavily weighted toward financials, while the US is heavily weighted toward tech. The US tech sector has collapsed relative to financials (Chart 6).  Chart 5US Sanctions On Iran US Sanctions On Iran US Sanctions On Iran Chart 6US Sanctions On Iran US Sanctions On Iran US Sanctions On Iran Bottom Line: US energy and financials sectors can fare reasonably well in a stagflationary context but their outperformance relative to tech is largely priced from a cyclical point of view. US maximum pressure sanctions on Iran never hurt the US dollar. US Sanctions On Russia The US’s extraordinary sanctions against Russia in 2022 – including freezing its dollar-denominated foreign exchange reserves – have sparked market fears that countries will divest from US dollars to protect themselves from any future US sanctions. To be clear, the US has confiscated foreign enemies’ property and foreign exchange reserves in the past. True, Russia is qualitatively different from other countries, such as Iran, because it is one of the world’s great powers. Yet the US closed off all economic and financial linkages with Russia from 1949-1991 because of the Cold War, the very period when the US dollar rose to prominence as the global reserve currency. In 2022, sanctions on Russia have primarily hurt the Russian ruble, not the US dollar (Chart 7). The Russians divested from the dollar after invading Ukraine in 2014 to reduce the impact of sanctions. But they were not able to divest fast enough to prevent the 2022 sanctions from pummeling their financial system and economy. Chart 7US Sanctions On Russia US Sanctions On Russia US Sanctions On Russia Going forward Russia will be much more insulated from the US dollar but at a terrible cost to long-term productivity. The lesson for other US rivals may be to diversify away from the dollar – but that will be a secondary lesson. The primary lesson will be to take economic stability into account when making strategic security decisions. Economic stability requires ongoing engagement in the global financial system and US dollar system. US sanctions on Russia have benefited US equities and dollar relative to Russian assets as one would expect. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine exacerbated the trend. The takeaway for US investors is that the energy sector’s outperformance sector’s outperformance can continue in the short run but is becoming stretched from a cyclical perspective. Bottom Line: Investors should expect oil and the energy sector to remain strong in the short run, while tech will suffer in an inflationary and stagflationary environment. But energy may not outperform tech for much longer. US Sanctions On China US policy toward China is the critical question today. China holds $1 trillion in dollar-denominated exchange reserves and must recycle around $200 billion in current account surpluses every year into global assets. The US has imposed sweeping sanctions on Iran since 2010, Russia since 2012, and China since 2018. China began diversifying away from dollar-denominated foreign exchange reserves in 2011 in the wake of the Great Recession. The US-initiated trade war in 2018 solidified the change in China’s foreign reserve strategy. The US sanctions against Russia will further solidify it. There are some signs that US punitive measures affected the USD-CNY exchange rate but global economic cycles are far more powerful. The yuan appreciated from 2005 until the global financial crisis, during the height of US-China economic and diplomatic engagement. It depreciated through the manufacturing slowdown of 2015 and the US-China trade war. It appreciated again with the pandemic stimulus and global trade rebound. The yuan was affected by US sanctions and tariffs on the margin amid these larger macro swings (Chart 8, top panel). Still, the overarching trend since 2014 points to a rising dollar and falling yuan. Globalization is in retreat and US-China strategic competition is heating up. As with South Korea, these trends are negative for Chinese assets. US sanctions are a symptom rather than a cause of the underlying macro and geopolitical dynamics. The same point can be made with regard to US equity performance relative to Chinese – and hence US tech outperformance relative to US industrial stocks (Chart 8, bottom panel). However, as with Korea, the cyclical takeaway is to favor industrials over technology in a stagflationary environment. Chart 8US Sanctions On China US Sanctions On China US Sanctions On China Bottom Line: Tactically favor US industrials over tech until the world’s stagflationary trajectory is corrected. US-China relations are one area where US sanction policy can hurt the dollar, as China will seek to diversify over time. But so far the evidence is scant. US Sanctions And Foreign Holdings Of Treasuries Having examined US sanctions on a country-by-country basis, we should now turn toward holdings of US dollars and Treasury securities. Are US economic sanctions jeopardizing the willingness of states to hold US assets? First, Americans hold 74% of outstanding treasuries. Foreigners hold the remaining 26% (Chart 9, top panel). This is a large degree of foreign ownership that reflects the US’s openness as an economy, as well as the size of the treasury market, which makes it attractive to foreign savers who need a place to store their wealth. Of this 26%, defense allies hold about 36%. Theoretically up to 17% of treasuries stand at risk of rapid liquidation by non-allied states afraid of US sanctions. But a conservative estimate would be 6%. Notably the share of foreign-held treasuries held by non-allies has fallen from 40% in 2009 to 23% today. Non-allies are reducing their share fairly rapidly (Chart 9, middle panel). What this really means is that China and Hong Kong are reducing their share – from 26% in 2008 to 16% today. Brazil and India have maintained a steady 6% of foreign-held treasuries. Notably the offshore financial centers see a growing share, suggesting that trust in the dollar remains strong even among states and entities that wish to hide their identity. Some of the divestment that has occurred from non-allied states may be overstated due to rerouting through these third parties. Looking at the data in absolute terms, only China – and arguably Brazil – can be said with any certainty to be pursuing a dedicated policy of divesting from US dollar reserves (Chart 10). This makes sense, as China, like Russia, is engaged in geopolitical competition with the US and therefore must take precautions against future US punitive measures. But these measures are not so far generating a worldwide flight from the dollar, either at the micro level or the macro level. Chart 9Foreign Purchases Of US Treasuries Foreign Purchases Of US Treasuries Foreign Purchases Of US Treasuries Chart 10Foreigners With Large Treasury Holdings Foreigners With Large Treasury Holdings Foreigners With Large Treasury Holdings In fact, the biggest competitor to the US dollar is the euro. This is clear from looking at the share of global currency reserves – the two are inversely proportional (Chart 11). And yet it is the European Union, not the US, that could suffer a long-term loss of security, productivity, and stability as a result of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The euro is losing status as a reserve currency and the war could exacerbate that trend. Chart 11Global Reserve Currency Basket Global Reserve Currency Basket Global Reserve Currency Basket Europe does not provide protection from US sanctions. The EU, like the US, utilizes economic sanctions and the two entities share many similar foreign policy objectives. Europe is also allied with the US through NATO. When the US withdrew from the Iran nuclear deal, the EU did not withdraw, yet EU entities enforced the sanctions, as their economic linkages with the US were much more valuable than those with Iran. In the case of Russia, the two have imposed sanctions in league, as they will likely do toward other small or great powers that attempt to reshape the global order through military force. The next competitors to the dollar and euro are grouped together in Chart 11 above because they are the US’s “maritime allies,” such as Japan, the United Kingdom, and Australia. These countries will pursue a similar foreign policy to the United States and they do not offer protection from US sanctions during times of conflict or war.  The true competitor is the Chinese renminbi. The renminbi will grow as a share of global reserves. But it faces serious obstacles from China’s economic policy, currency controls, closed capital account, and geopolitical competition with the United States. Washington’s sanctions have already targeted China yet the US dollar has remained resilient.  Bottom Line: The US’s erratic foreign policy in recent decades has potentially weighed on the US’s commanding position as a global reserve currency, with its share of reserves falling from 71% in 2000 to 59% today. But US allies have mostly picked up the slack. And the dollar’s top competitor, the euro, is likely to suffer more than the dollar from the Ukraine war. Still it is true that US sanctions are alienating China, which will continue to diversify away from the dollar.  Investment Takeaways Tactically stay long the US dollar (DXY). The combination of monetary policy tightening and foreign policy challenges is driving a dollar rally that could result in a breakout.  US sanctions policy is not a convincing reason to sell the dollar in today’s context. Over the medium term dollar diversification poses a risk, although the dollar will still remain the single largest reserve currency over a long-term, strategic horizon. For further discussion see the Special Report by our Foreign Exchange Strategy and Geopolitical Strategy, “Is The Dollar’s Reserve Status Under Threat?” Given US domestic policy uncertainty in an election year, and foreign policy challenges, stay long defensive sectors, namely health care, over cyclical sectors.   Tactically our renewable energy trade has dropped sharply. But cyclically it remains attractive, as our recent Special Report with our US Equity Strategy team demonstrates. If Congress fails to succeed in promoting its new climate and energy bill, then this trade could suffer bad news in the near term. Tactically US industrials can continue to outperform the tech sector, given the stagflationary context that is developing. Energy’s outperformance, especially relative to tech, is becoming stretched, at least from a cyclical point of view. But geopolitical trends suggest oil risks are still to the upside tactically. For now, maintain exposure to high energy prices by staying long energy small caps versus large caps and O&G transportation and storage.   Matt Gertken Senior Vice President Chief US Political Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com   Strategic View Open Tactical Positions (0-6 Months) Open Cyclical Recommendations (6-18 Months)   Table A2Political Risk Matrix US Sanctions And The Market Impact US Sanctions And The Market Impact Table A3US Political Capital Index US Sanctions And The Market Impact US Sanctions And The Market Impact Chart A1Presidential Election Model US Sanctions And The Market Impact US Sanctions And The Market Impact Chart A2Senate Election Model US Sanctions And The Market Impact US Sanctions And The Market Impact Table A4APolitical Capital: White House And Congress US Sanctions And The Market Impact US Sanctions And The Market Impact Table A4BPolitical Capital: Household And Business Sentiment US Sanctions And The Market Impact US Sanctions And The Market Impact Table A4CPolitical Capital: The Economy And Markets US Sanctions And The Market Impact US Sanctions And The Market Impact

Executive Summary The Ukraine war reinforces our key view that commodity producers will use their geopolitical leverage this year. The market is growing complacent again about Russian risks. Iran is part of the same dynamic. If US-Iran talks fail, as we expect, the Middle East will destabilize and add another energy supply risk on top of the Russian risk. The Ukraine war also interacts with our other two key views for 2022: China’s reversion to autocracy and the US’s policy insularity. Both add policy uncertainty and weigh on risk sentiment. The war also reinforces our strategic themes for the 2020s: Great Power Rivalry, Hypo-Globalization, and Populism/Nationalism. Stagflation Cometh Stagflation Cometh Stagflation Cometh Trade Recommendation Inception Date Return Cyclically Long Global Defensives Versus Cyclicals 2022-01-20 10.8% Bottom Line: Tactically stay long global defensives and large caps. Cyclically stay long gold, US equities, aerospace/defense, and cyber security. Feature In our annual outlook, “The Gathering Storm,” we argued that the post-pandemic world economy would destabilize due to intensifying rivalry among the leading nations. We argued that China’s reversion to autocracy, US domestic divisions, and Russia’s commodity leverage would produce a toxic brew for global investors in 2022. By January 27 it was clear to us that Russia would invade Ukraine, so the storm was arriving sooner than we thought, and we doubled down on our defensive and risk-averse market positioning. We derived these three key views from new cyclical trends and the way they interact with our underlying strategic themes – Great Power Rivalry, Hypo-Globalization, and Populism/Nationalism (Table 1). These themes are mutually reinforcing, rooted in solid evidence over many years, and will not change easily. Table 1Three Geopolitical Strategic Themes Second Quarter Outlook 2022: When It Rains, It Pours Second Quarter Outlook 2022: When It Rains, It Pours Related Report  Geopolitical Strategy2022 Key Views: The Gathering Storm The Ukraine war reinforces them: Russia took military action to increase its security relative to the US and NATO; the West imposed sanctions that reduce globalization with Russia and potentially other states; Russian aggression stemmed from nationalism and caused a spike in global prices that will spur more nationalism and populism going forward. In this report we examine how these trends will develop in the second quarter and beyond. We see stagflation taking shape and recommend investors prepare for it by continuing to favor defensive sectors, commodities, and value plays. Checking Up On Our Russia View For 2022 Our third key view for 2022 – that oil producers like Russia and Iran possessed immense geopolitical leverage and would most likely use it – is clearly the dominant geopolitical trend of the year, as manifested in the Russian invasion of Ukraine.1 Russia first invaded Ukraine in 2014 and curtailed operations after commodity prices crashed. It launched a new and larger invasion in 2022 when a new commodity cycle began (Chart 1). Facing tactical setbacks, Russia has begun withdrawing forces from around the Ukrainian capital Kyiv. But it will redouble its efforts to conquer the eastern Donbas region and the southern coastline. The coast is the most strategic territory at stake (Map 1). Chart 1Russia's Commodity-Enabled Aggression Russia's Commodity-Enabled Aggression Russia's Commodity-Enabled Aggression Map 1Russian Invasion Of Ukraine, 2022 Second Quarter Outlook 2022: When It Rains, It Pours Second Quarter Outlook 2022: When It Rains, It Pours The most decisive limitation on Russia’s military effort would come from a collapse of commodity exports or prices, which has not happened yet. Europe continues to buy Russian oil and natural gas, although it is debating a ban on the $4.4 billion worth of coal that it imports. With high energy prices making up for a drop in export volumes, Russian armed forces can still attempt a summer and fall campaign (Chart 2). The aim would be to conquer remaining portions of Donetsk and Luhansk, the “land bridge” to Crimea, and potentially the stretch of land between the Dnieper river and eastern Moldova, where Russian troops are already stationed. Chart 2Russia’s War Financing Second Quarter Outlook 2022: When It Rains, It Pours Second Quarter Outlook 2022: When It Rains, It Pours Ukraine’s military neutrality is the core Russian objective. Ukraine is offering neutrality in exchange for security guarantees in the current ceasefire talks. Hence a durable ceasefire is possible if the details of neutrality are agreed – Ukraine forswears joining NATO and hosting foreign military infrastructure while accepting limitations on military exercises and defense systems. The security guarantees that Ukraine demands are mostly symbolic, as the western powers that would be credible guarantors are already unwilling to use military force against Russia (e.g. the US, UK, NATO members). However, Russia’s withdrawal from Kyiv will embolden the Ukrainians, so we do not expect a durable ceasefire in the second quarter. Global investors will be mistaken if they ignore Ukraine in the second quarter, at least until core problems are resolved. What matters most is whether the war expands beyond Ukraine: The likelihood of a broader war is low but not negligible. So far the Russian regime is behaving somewhat rationally: Moscow attacked a non-NATO member to prevent it from joining NATO; it limited the size of the military commitment; and it is now accepting reality and withdrawing from Kyiv while negotiating on Ukrainian neutrality. But a major problem emerges if Russia’s military fails in the Donbas while Ukraine reneges on offers of neutrality. Any ceasefire could fall apart and the war could re-escalate. Russia could redouble its attacks on the country or conduct a limited attack outside of Ukraine to trigger a crisis in the western alliance. Moreover, if sanctions keep rising until Russia’s economy collapses, Moscow could become less rational. Finland and Sweden have seen a shift of public opinion in favor of joining NATO. Any intention to do so would trigger a belligerent reaction from Russia. These governments are well aware of the precarious balance that must be maintained to prevent war, so war is unlikely. But if their stance changes then Russia will threaten to attack. Russia would threaten to bomb these states since it cannot now credibly threaten invasion by land (Charts 3A & 3B). Chart 3ANordic States Joining NATO Would Trigger Larger War Second Quarter Outlook 2022: When It Rains, It Pours Second Quarter Outlook 2022: When It Rains, It Pours ​​​​​ Chart 3BNordic States Joining NATO Would Trigger Larger War Second Quarter Outlook 2022: When It Rains, It Pours Second Quarter Outlook 2022: When It Rains, It Pours ​​​​​​ The Black Sea is vulnerable to “Black Swan” events or military spillovers. Russia is re-concentrating its military efforts in the Donbas and land bridge to Crimea. Russia could expand its offensive to Odessa and the Moldovan border. Or Russia could attempt to create a new norm of naval dominance in the Black Sea. Or ships from third countries could hit mines or become casualties of war. For these and other reasons, investors should not take on additional risk in their portfolios on the basis that a durable ceasefire will be concluded quickly. Russia’s position is far too vulnerable to encourage risk-taking. Moscow could escalate tensions to try to save face. It is also critical to ensure that Russia and Europe maintain their energy trade: Neither side has an interest in total energy cutoff. Russia needs the revenue to finance its war and needs to discourage Europe from fulfilling its pledges to transition rapidly to other sources and substitutes. Europe needs the energy to avoid recession, maintain some tie with Russia, and enable its energy diversification strategy. So far natural gas flows are continuing (Chart 4). Chart 4Natural Gas Flows Continuing (So Far) Natural Gas Flows Continuing (So Far) Natural Gas Flows Continuing (So Far) ​​​​​​ Chart 5Global Oil Supply/Demand Balance Global Oil Supply/Demand Balance Global Oil Supply/Demand Balance ​​​​​​ However, risks to energy trade are rising. Russia is threatening to cut off energy exports if not paid in rubles, while the EU is beginning to entertain sanctions on energy. Russia can reduce oil or gas flows incrementally to keep prices high and prevent Europe from rebuilding stockpiles for fall and winter. Partial energy cutoff is possible. Europe’s diversification makes Russia’s predicament dire. Substantial sanction relief is highly unlikely, as western powers will want to prevent Russia from rebuilding its economy and military. Russia could try to impose significant pain on Europe to try to force a more favorable diplomatic solution. A third factor that matters is whether the US will expand its sanction enforcement to demand strict compliance from other nations, at pain of secondary sanctions: Secondary sanctions are likely in the case of China and other nations that stand at odds with the US and help Russia circumvent sanctions. In China’s case, the US is already interested in imposing sanctions on the financial or technology sector as part of its long-term containment strategy. While the Biden administration’s preference is to control the pace of escalation with China, and thus not to slap sanctions immediately, nevertheless substantial sanctions cannot be ruled out in the second quarter. Secondary sanctions will be limited in the case of US allies and partners, such as EU members, Turkey, and India. Countries that do business with Russia but are critical to US strategy will be given waivers or special treatment. Russia is not the only commodity producer that enjoys outsized geopolitical leverage amid a global commodity squeeze. Iran is the next most critical producer. Iran is also critical for the stability of the Middle East. In particular, the consequential US-Iran talks over whether to rejoin the 2015 nuclear deal are likely to come to a decision in the second quarter. Chart 6Failure Of US-Iran Talks Jeopardizes Middle East Oil Supply Failure Of US-Iran Talks Jeopardizes Middle East Oil Supply Failure Of US-Iran Talks Jeopardizes Middle East Oil Supply If the US and Iran agree to a strategic détente, then regional tensions will briefly subside, reducing global oil disruption risks and supply pressures. Iran could bring 1.3 million barrels per day of oil back online, adding to President Biden’s 1 million per day release of strategic petroleum reserves. The combination would amount to 2.3% of global demand and more than cover the projected quarterly average supply deficit, which ranges from 400k to 900k barrels per day for the rest of 2022 (Chart 5). If the US and Iran fail to agree, then the Middle East will suffer another round of instability, adding a Middle Eastern energy shock on top of the Russian shock. Not only would Iran’s 1.3 million barrels per day be jeopardized but so would Iraq’s 4.4 million, Saudi Arabia’s 10.3 million, the UAE’s 3.0 million, or the Strait of Hormuz’s combined 24 million per day (Chart 6). This gives Iran leverage to pursue nuclear weaponization prior to any change in US government that would strengthen Israel’s ability to stop Iran. We would not bet on an agreement – but we cannot rule it out. The Biden administration can reduce sanctions via executive action to prevent a greater oil shock, while the Iranians can accept sanction relief in exchange for easily reversible moves toward compliance with the 2015 nuclear deal. But this would be a short-term, stop-gap measure, not a long-term strategic détente. Conflict between Iran and its neighbors will revive sooner than expected after the deal is agreed, as Iran’s nuclear ambitions will persist. OPEC states are already producing more oil rapidly, suggesting no quick fix if the US-Iran deal falls apart. While core OPEC states have 3.5 million barrels per day in spare capacity to bring to bear, a serious escalation of tensions with Iran would jeopardize this solution. Finally, if commodity producers have geopolitical leverage, then commodity consumers are lacking in leverage. This is clear from Europe’s inability to prevent Russia’s attack or ban Russian energy. It is clear from the US’s apparent unwillingness to give up on a short-term deal with Iran. It is clear from China’s inability to provide sufficient monetary and fiscal stimulus as it struggles with Covid-19. Turkey, Egypt, and Pakistan are geopolitically significant importers of Russian and Ukrainian grain that are likely to face food insecurity and social unrest. We will address this issue below under our Populism/Nationalism theme. Bottom Line: Investors should not be complacent. Russia’s military standing in Ukraine is weak, but its ability to finance the war has not yet collapsed, which means that it will escalate the conflict to save face. What About Our Other Key Views For 2022? Our other two key views for 2022 are even more relevant in the wake of the Ukraine re-invasion. China’s reversion to autocracy is a factor in China’s domestic and foreign policy: Domestically China needs economic and social stability in the advance of the twentieth national party congress, when President Xi Jinping hopes to clinch 10 more years in power. In pursuit of this goal China is easing monetary and fiscal policy. However, with depressed animal spirits, a weakening property sector, and high debt levels, monetary policy is proving insufficient. Fiscal policy will have to step up. But even here, inflation is likely to impose a limitation on how much stimulus the authorities can utilize (Chart 7). Chart 7China Stimulus Impaired By Inflation China Stimulus Impaired By Inflation China Stimulus Impaired By Inflation ​​​​​​ Chart 8Chinese Supply Kinks To Persist Due To Covid-19 Chinese Supply Kinks To Persist Due To Covid-19 Chinese Supply Kinks To Persist Due To Covid-19 China is also trying but failing to maintain a “Covid Zero” policy. The more contagious Omicron variant of the virus is breaking out and slipping beyond the authorities’ ability to suppress cases of the virus to zero. Shanghai is on lockdown and other cities will follow suit. China will attempt to redouble its containment efforts before it will accept the reality that the virus cannot be contained. Chinese production and shipping will become delayed and obstructed as a result, putting another round of upward pressure on global prices (Chart 8). Stringent pandemic restrictions could trigger social unrest. China is ripe for social unrest, which is why it launched the “Common Prosperity” program last year to convince citizens that quality of life will improve. But this program is a long-term program that will not bring immediate relief. On the contrary, the economy is still suffering and the virus will spread more widely, as well as draconian social restrictions. The result is that the lead up to the national party congress will not be as smooth as the Xi administration had hoped. Global investors will remain pessimistic toward Chinese stocks. In foreign affairs, China’s reversion to autocracy is reinforced by Russia’s clash with the West and the need to coordinate more closely. Xi hosted Putin in Beijing on February 4, prior to the invasion, and the two declared that their strategic partnership ushers in a “new era” of “multipolarity” and that their cooperation has “no limits,” which really means that military cooperation is not forbidden. China agreed to purchase an additional 10 billion cubic meters of Russian natural gas over 30-years. While this amount would only replace 3% of Russian natural gas exports to Europe, it would mark a 26% increase in Russian exports to China. More importantly it acts as a symbol of Chinese willingness to substitute for Europe over time. There is a long way to go for China to replace Europe as a customer (Chart 9). But China knows it needs to convert its US dollar foreign exchange reserves, vulnerable to US sanctions, into hard investments in supply security within the Eurasian continent. Chart 9Long Way To Go For China NatGas Imports To Replace EU Second Quarter Outlook 2022: When It Rains, It Pours Second Quarter Outlook 2022: When It Rains, It Pours China is helping Russia circumvent sanctions. China’s chief interest is to minimize the shock to its domestic economy. This means keeping Russian energy and commodities flowing. China could also offer military equipment for Russia. The US has expressly warned China against taking such an action. China could mitigate the blowback by stipulating that the assistance cannot be used in Ukraine. This would be unenforceable but would provide diplomatic cover. While China is uncomfortable with the disturbance of the Ukraine war – it does not want foreign affairs to cause even larger supply shocks. At the same time, China does not want Russia to lose the war or Putin’s regime to fall from power. If Russia loses, Taiwan and its western allies would be emboldened, while Russia could pursue a détente with the West, leaving China isolated. Since China faces US containment policy regardless of what happens in Russia, it is better for China to have Putin making an example out of Ukraine and keeping the Americans and Europeans preoccupied. Chart 10China Strives To Preserve EU Trade Ties China Strives To Preserve EU Trade Ties China Strives To Preserve EU Trade Ties China must also preserve ties with Europe. Diplomacy will likely succeed in the short run since Europe has no interest or desire to expand sanctions to China. The Biden administration will defer to Europe on the pace of sanctions – it is not willing or able to force Europe to break with China suddenly. Eventually Europe and China may sever relations but not yet – China has a powerful incentive to preserve them (Chart 10). China will also court India and other powers in an attempt to hedge its bets on Russia while weakening any American containment. Beyond the party congress, China will be focused on securing the economic recovery and implementing the common prosperity agenda. The first step is to maintain easy monetary and fiscal policy. The second step is to “let 100 flowers bloom,” i.e. relaxing social and regulatory controls to try to revive entrepreneurship and animal spirits, which are heavily depressed. Xi will have the ability to do this after re-consolidating power. The third step will be to try to stabilize economic relations with Europe and others (conceivably even the US temporarily, though no serious détente is likely). The remaining key view for 2022 is that the Biden administration’s domestic focus will be defensive and will invite foreign policy challenges. The Ukraine war vindicates this view but the question now is whether Biden has or will change tack: The Biden administration is focused on the midterm elections and the huge risk to the Democratic Party’s standing. Biden has not received a boost in opinion polls from the war. He is polling even worse when it comes to handling of the economy (Chart 11). While he should be able to repackage his budget reconciliation bill as an energy security bill, his thin majorities in both houses make passage difficult. Chart 11Biden And Democrats Face Shellacking In Midterm Election Second Quarter Outlook 2022: When It Rains, It Pours Second Quarter Outlook 2022: When It Rains, It Pours Biden’s weak standing – with or without a midterm shellacking – raises the prospect that Republicans could take back the White House in 2024, which discourages foreign nations from making any significant concessions to the United States in their negotiations. They must assume that partisanship will continue to contaminate foreign policy and lead to abrupt policy reversals. In foreign policy, the US remains reactive in the face of Russian aggression. If Russia signs a ceasefire, the US will not sabotage it to prolong Russian difficulties. Moreover Biden continues to exempt Europe and other allies and partners from enforcing the US’s most severe sanctions for fear of a larger energy shock. Europe’s avoidance of an energy ban is critical and any change in US policy to try to force the EU to cut off Russian energy is unlikely. China will not agree to structural reform or deep concessions in its trade negotiations, knowing that former President Trump could come back. The Biden administration’s own trade policy toward China is limited in scope, as the US Trade Representative Katherine Tai admitted when she said that the US could no longer aim to change China’s behavior via trade talks. Biden’s only proactive foreign policy initiative, Iran, will not bring him public kudos if it is achieved. But American inconstancy is one of the reasons that Iran may walk away from the 2015 nuclear deal. Why should Iran’s hawkish leaders be expected to constrain their nuclear program and expose their economy to future US sanctions if they can circumvent US sanctions anyway, and Republicans have a fair chance of coming back into power as early as January 2025? Biden’s unprecedented release of strategic petroleum reserves will not be able to prevent gasoline prices from staying high given the underlying supply pressures at home and abroad. This is especially true if the Iran talks fail as we expect. Even if inflation abates before the election, it is unlikely to abate enough to save his party from a shellacking. That in turn will weaken the global impression of his administration’s staying power. Hence Biden will focus on maintaining US alliances, which means allowing Europe, India, and others to proceed at a more pragmatic and dovish pace in their relations with Russia and China. Bottom Line: China’s reversion to autocracy and America’s policy insularity suggest that global investors face considerable policy uncertainty this year even aside from the war in Europe. Checking Up On Our Strategic Themes For The 2020s Russia’s invasion strongly confirmed our three strategic themes of Great Power Rivalry, Hypo-Globalization, and Populism/Nationalism. These themes are mutually reinforcing: insecurity among the leading nation-states encourages regionalization rather than globalization, while populism and nationalism encourage nations to pursue economic and security interests at the expense of their neighbors. First, the Ukraine war confirms and exacerbates Great Power Rivalry: Chart 12China And Russia Both Need To Balance Against US Preponderance Second Quarter Outlook 2022: When It Rains, It Pours Second Quarter Outlook 2022: When It Rains, It Pours Russia’s action vindicates the “realist” school of international relations (in which we count ourselves) by forcing the world to wake up to the fact that nations still care primarily about national security defined in material ways, such as armies, resources, and territories. The paradox of realism is that if at least one of the great nations pursues its national self-interest and engages in competition for security, then all other nations will be forced to do the same. If a nation neglects its national security interests in pursuit of global economic engagement and cooperation, then it will suffer, since other nations will take advantage of it to enhance their security. Hence, as a result of Ukraine, nations will give a higher weight to national security relative to economic efficiency. The result will be an acceleration of decisions to use fiscal funds and guide the private economy in pursuit of national interests – i.e. the Return of Big Government. Since actions to increase deterrence will provoke counteractions for the same reason, overall insecurity will rise. For example, the US and China will take extra precautions in case of future sanctions and war. But these precautions will reduce trust and cooperation and increase the probability of war over the long run. For the same reason, China cannot reject Russia’s strategic overture – it cannot afford to alienate and isolate Russia. China and Russia have a shared interest in countering the United States because it is the only nation that could conceivably impose a global empire over all nations (Chart 12). The US could deprive Beijing and Moscow of the regional spheres of influence that they each need to improve their national security. This is true not only in Ukraine and Taiwan but in other peripheral areas such as Belarus, the Caucasus, Central Asia, and Southeast Asia. China has much to gain from Russia. Russia is offering China privileged overland access to Russian, Central Asian, and Middle Eastern resources and markets. This resource base is vital to China’s strategic needs, given its import dependency and vulnerability to US maritime power (Chart 13). Chart 13China’s Maritime Vulnerability Forces Eurasian Strategy, Russian Alliance Second Quarter Outlook 2022: When It Rains, It Pours Second Quarter Outlook 2022: When It Rains, It Pours Investors should understand Great Power Rivalry in a multipolar rather than bipolar sense. As Russia breaks from the West, investors are quick to move rapidly to the bipolar Cold War analogy because that is what they are familiar with. But the world today has multiple poles of political power, as it did for centuries prior to the twentieth. While the US is the preponderant power, it is not hegemonic. It faces not one but two revisionist challengers – Russia and China. Meanwhile Europe and India are independent poles of power that are not exclusively aligned with the US or China. For example, China and the EU need to maintain economic ties with each other for the sake of stability, and neither the US nor Russia can prevent them from doing so. The same goes for India and Russia. China will embrace Russia and Europe at the same time, while hardening its economy against US punitive measures. India will preserve ties with Russia and China, while avoiding conflict with the US and its allies (the maritime powers), whom it needs for its long-term strategic security in the Indian Ocean basin. Ultimately bipolarity may be the end-game – e.g. if China takes aggressive action to revise the global order like Russia has done – but the persistence of Sino-European ties and Russo-Indian ties suggest we are not there yet. Second, the Ukraine war reinforces Hypo-Globalization: Since the pandemic we have argued that trade would revive on the global economic snapback but that globalization – the deepening of trade integration – would ultimately fall short of its pre-2020 and pre-2008 trajectory. Instead we would inhabit a new world of “hypo-globalization,” in which trade flows fell short of potential. So far the data support this view (Chart 14). Chart 14Globalization Falling Short Of Potential Second Quarter Outlook 2022: When It Rains, It Pours Second Quarter Outlook 2022: When It Rains, It Pours The Ukraine war has strengthened this thesis not only by concretely reducing Russia’s trajectory of trade with the West – reversing decades of integration since the fall of the Soviet Union – but also by increasing the need for nations to guard against a future Chinese confrontation with the Western world. Trust between China and the West will further erode. China will need to guard against any future sanctions, and thus diversify away from the US dollar and assets, while the US will need to do a better job of deterring China against aggression in Asia, and will thus have to diversify away from Chinese manufacturing and critical resources like rare earths. While China and Europe need each other now, the US and China are firmly set on a long-term path of security competition in East Asia. Eventually either the US or China will take a more aggressive stance and Europe will be forced to react. Since Europe will still need US support against a decaying and aggressive Russia, it will likely be dragged into assisting the US against China. Third, the Ukraine war reflects and amplifies Populism/Nationalism: Populism and nationalism are not the same thing but they both stem from the slowing trend of global income growth, the rise of inequality, the corruption of the elite political establishments, and now the rise in inflation. Nations have to devote more resources to pacifying an angry populace, or distracting that populace through foreign adventures, or both. The Ukraine war reflects the rise in nationalism. First, the collapse of the Soviet Union ushered in a period in which Moscow lost control of its periphery, while the diverse peoples could pursue national self-determination and statehood. The independence and success of the Baltic states depended on economic and military cooperation with the West, which eroded Russian national security and provoked a nationalist backlash in the form of President Putin’s regime. Ukraine became the epicenter of this conflict. Ukraine’s successful military resistance is likely to provoke a dangerous backlash from Moscow until either policy changes or the regime changes. American nationalism has flared repeatedly since the fall of the Soviet Union, namely in the Iraq war. The American state has suffered economically and politically for that imperial overreach. But American nationalism is still a potent force and could trigger a more aggressive shift in US foreign policy in 2024 or beyond. European states have kept nationalism in check and tried to subsume their various nationalist sentiments into a liberal and internationalist project, the European Union. The wave of nationalist forces in the wake of the European debt crisis has subsided, with the exception of the United Kingdom, where it flowered in Brexit. The French election in the second quarter will likely continue this trend with the re-election of President Emmanuel Macron, but even if he should suffer a surprise upset to nationalist Marine Le Pen, Europe’s centripetal forces will prevent her from taking France out of the EU or euro or NATO (Chart 15). Over the coming decade, nationalist forces will revive and will present a new challenge to Europe’s ruling elites – but global great power competition strongly supports the EU’s continued evolution into a single geopolitical entity, since the independent states are extremely vulnerable to Russia, China, and even the US unless they unite and strengthen their superstructure. Chart 15Macron Favored, Le Pen Would Be Ineffective Macron Favored, Le Pen Would Be Ineffective Macron Favored, Le Pen Would Be Ineffective In fact the true base of global nationalism is migrating to Asia. Chinese and Indian nationalism are very potent forces under President Xi Jinping and Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Xi is on the verge of clinching another ten years in power while Modi is still favored for re-election in 2024, so there is no reason to anticipate a change anytime soon. The effects are various but what is most important for investors is to recognize that as China’s potential GDP has fallen over the past decade, the Communist Party has begun to utilize nationalism as a new source of legitimacy, and this is expressed through a more assertive foreign policy. President Xi is the emblem of this shift and it will not change, even if China pursues a lower profile over certain periods to avoid provoking the US and its allies into a more effective coalition to contain China. Chart 16Food Insecurity Will Promote Global Unrest, Populism Food Insecurity Will Promote Global Unrest, Populism Food Insecurity Will Promote Global Unrest, Populism The surge in global prices will destabilize regimes that lack food security and contribute to new bouts of populism and nationalism. Turkey is the most vulnerable due to a confluence of political, economic, and military risks that will unsettle the state. But Egypt is vulnerable to an Arab Spring 2.0 that would have negative security implications for Israel and add powder to the Middle Eastern powder keg. Pakistan is already witnessing political turmoil. Investors may overlook any Indonesian unrest due to its attractiveness in a world where Russia and China are scaring away western investment (Chart 16). All three of these strategic themes are mutually reinforcing – and they tend to be inflationary over the long run. Great powers that redouble the pursuit of national interest – through defense spending and energy security investments – while simultaneously being forced to expand their social safety nets to appease popular discontent, will drive up budget deficits, consume a lot of natural resources, and purchase a lot of capital equipment. They will also more frequently engage in economic or military conflicts that constrain supply (Chart 17). Chart 17War And Preparation For War Are Inflationary War And Preparation For War Are Inflationary War And Preparation For War Are Inflationary Bottom Line: The Ukraine war is a powerful confirmation of our three strategic themes. It is also a confirmation that these themes have inflationary macroeconomic implications. Investment Takeaways Chart 18Global Investors Still Flee To US For Safety Global Investors Still Flee To US For Safety Global Investors Still Flee To US For Safety Now that great power rivalry is intensifying immediately and rapidly, and yet China’s and Europe’s economies are encountering greater difficulties, we expect stagflation to arrive sooner rather than later. High headline and core inflation, the Ukraine war, tacit Chinese support for Russia, persistent Chinese supply kinks, US and EU sanctions, US midterm elections, and a potential US-Iran diplomatic breakdown will all weigh on risk sentiment in the second quarter. In Ukraine, Russia’s position is too weak to give comfort for investors, who should continue to favor defensive over cyclical equities and US stocks over global stocks. Russia’s break with the West, and the West’s use of sanctions to prevent Russia from accessing its foreign exchange reserves, has raised new questions about the global currency reserve system and the dollar’s status within that system. Over the coming years China will redouble the efforts it began in the wake of the Great Recession to reduce its dependency on US dollar assets within its reserve basket, while also recycling new current account surpluses into non-dollar assets. However, the evidence does not suggest that King Dollar will suffer a structural breakdown. First, the world lacks alternative safe-haven assets to US Treasuries – and net foreign purchases of US bonds rose in the face of the Ukraine war (Chart 18). Second, the return of war to Europe will weaken the perceived long-term security of European currency and government bonds relative to US counterparts. Even if the Ukraine war is contained in the short run, as we expect, Russia is in structural decline and will remain a disruptive player for some time. We are not at all bearish on the euro or European bonds but we do not see the Ukraine war as increasing their value proposition, to put it lightly. The same logic extends to Japanese bonds, since China, like Russia, is an autocratic and revisionist state that threatens to shake up the security order in its neighborhood. Japan is relatively secure as a nation and we are bullish on the yen, but China’s de facto alliance with Russia weakens Japan’s security outlook over the very long run, especially relative to the United States. Thus, on a cyclical basis the dollar can depreciate, but on a structural basis the US dollar will remain the dominant reserve currency. The US is not only the wealthiest and most secure country in the world but also the largest oil producer. Meanwhile Chinese potential growth, domestic political stability, and foreign relations are all worsening. The US-Iran talks are the most critical geopolitical dynamic in the second quarter aside from Russia’s clash with the West. The fate of the 2015 nuclear deal will be decided soon and will determine whether an even bigger energy shock begins to emanate from the Middle East. We would not bet on a new US-Iran deal but we cannot rule it out. Any deal would be a short-term, stop-gap deal but would prevent an immediate destabilization of the Middle East this year. As such it would reduce the risk of stagflation. Since we expect the deal to fail, we expect a new energy shock to emerge. We see stagflation as more likely than the BCA House View. It will be difficult to lift productivity in an environment of geopolitical and political uncertainty combined with slowing global growth, rising interest rates, and a worsening commodity shock (Chart 19). We will gladly revise this stance if Biden clinches an Iran deal, China relaxes its Covid Zero policy and stabilizes domestic demand, Russia and Europe maintain energy trade, and commodity prices fall to more sustainable levels for global demand. Chart 19Stagflation Cometh Stagflation Cometh Stagflation Cometh Strategically we remain long gold, overweight US equities, overweight UK equities, long British pound and Japanese yen, long aerospace/defense stocks and cyber security stocks. We remain short Chinese renminbi and Taiwanese dollar and short emerging European assets. Our short Chinese renminbi trade and our short Taiwanese versus Korean equity trade are our worst-performing recommendations. However, the above analysis should highlight – and the Ukraine war should underscore – that these two economies face a fundamentally negative geopolitical dynamic. Both Chinese and Taiwanese stocks have been underperforming global peers since 2021 and our short TWD-USD trade is in the money. While we do not expect war to break out in Taiwan this year, we do expect various crisis events to occur, particularly in the lead up to the crucial Taiwanese and American 2022 midterms and 2024 presidential election. We also expect China to depreciate the renminbi when inflation peaks and commodity prices subside. Cyclically we remain long North American and Latin American oil producers and short Middle Eastern producers, based on our pessimistic read of the Iran situation. The Americas are fundamentally better protected from geopolitical risks than other regions, although they continue to suffer from domestic political risks on a country-by-country basis. Cyclically we continue to take a defensive positioning, overweighting defensive sectors and large cap equities.   Matt Gertken Chief Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1      That the Russian threat fell under our third key view for 2022 implies that we did not get our priorities straight. However, consider the timing: shortly after publishing our annual outlook on December 15, the Russians issued an ultimatum to the western powers demanding that NATO stop expanding toward Russia. Diplomats from Russia and the West met on January 12-13 but Russia’s demands were not met. We upgraded the odds that Russia would invade Ukraine from 50% to 75% on January 27. Shuttle diplomacy ensued but failed. Russia invaded on February 24. Strategic Themes Open Tactical Positions (0-6 Months) Open Cyclical Recommendations (6-18 Months) Regional Geopolitical Risk Matrix "Batting Average": Geopolitical Strategy Trades () Section II: Special (EDIT this Header) Section III: Geopolitical Calendar

Executive Summary Failure Of Iran Deal Tightens Oil Supply Failure Of Iran Deal Tights Oil Supply Failure Of Iran Deal Tights Oil Supply The US and Iran suspended their attempt to negotiate a nuclear deal on March 11. Countries often get cold feet before major agreements but there are good reasons to believe this suspension will be permanent. A confirmed failure to restore the US-Iran strategic détente will lead to Middle Eastern instability. Iran will be on a trajectory to achieve nuclear weapons in a few years while Israel and the US will have to underscore their red lines against weaponization. The Strait of Hormuz will come under threat again. The immediate impact on oil prices should be positive: sanctions will continue to hinder Iran’s exports, while Iranian conflict with its neighbors will sharply increase the odds of oil disruptions caused by militant actions. Not to mention the Russia-induced energy supply shock. However, a decisive move by the Gulf Arab states to boost crude production would counteract the effect of Iranian sanctions and drive oil down. The Gulf Arabs will be more inclined to coordinate with the Biden administration as long as the Iran deal is ruled out. Thus oil volatility is the main implication beyond any short term oil spike.     Trade Recommendation Inception Date Return Long Gold (Strategic) 2019-12-06 36.8% Bottom Line: Go long US equities relative to global; long US and Canadian stocks versus Saudi and UAE stocks. Stay long XOP ETF, S&P GSCI index, and COMT ETF for exposure to oil prices and backwardation in oil forward curves. Feature The current Iran talks would have restored Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPA), which created a strategic détente between the US and Iran. Iran froze its nuclear program while the US lifted sanctions. President Barack Obama negotiated the deal in 2015, without congressional approval, while President Donald Trump nullified it in 2018, arguing that it did not restrict Iran’s ballistic missile development or support for regional militant groups. Chart 1Bull Market In Iran Tensions Will Be Super-Charged Bull Market In Iran Tensions Will Be Super-Charged Bull Market In Iran Tensions Will Be Super-Charged Since then there has been a bull market in Iran tensions (Chart 1), a secret war in which sporadic militant attacks, assassinations, and acts of sabotage occurred but neither side pursued open confrontation. These attacks can be significant, as with the Iran-backed attack on the Abqaiq refinery in Saudi Arabia, which took 6mm b/d of oil-processing capacity offline briefly in September 2019. The implication of this trend is energy supply disruption. Now the trend will be super-charged in the context of a global energy shortage. If no US-Iran détente is achieved, the Middle East will be set on a new trajectory of conflict, or at least a nuclear arms race and aggressive containment strategy. Since Trump turned away from the US-Iran détente and reimposed sanctions on Iran we have given a 40% chance of large-scale military conflict, according to our June 2019 decision tree (Diagram 1). The basis for such a conflict is Iran’s likelihood of obtaining nuclear arms and the need of Israel, its Arab neighbors, and the US to prevent that from happening. Diagram 1US-Iran Conflict: Critical Juncture In Our Decision Tree US-Iran Talks Break Down US-Iran Talks Break Down Between now and then, tit-for-tat military exchanges will increase, posing risks to oil supply in the short and medium run. Without a major diplomatic breakthrough that halts Iran’s nuclear weaponization, a bombing campaign against Iran will be the likeliest long-term consequence, due to the fateful logic of Israel’s strategic predicament (Diagram 2). Diagram 2Over Medium Term, Unilateral Israeli Military Action Is Possible US-Iran Talks Break Down US-Iran Talks Break Down Why Rejoining The US-Iran Deal Was Unlikely Under the Biden administration’s new plan, Iran would have frozen its nuclear program once again while Biden would have relaxed US “maximum pressure” sanctions on Iran, opening the way for foreign investment and the development of Iran’s energy sector and economy. The basis for a deal was the belief among some US policymakers that engagement with Iran would open up its economy, reducing regional war risks (especially in Iraq), expanding global energy supply, and fomenting pro-democratic sentiment in Iran. Also the Washington military-industrial complex wanted to reduce the US’s commitment to the Middle East and arrange a grand strategic “pivot to Asia” so as to counter the rise of China. Up till August 2021, we viewed a deal as likely, but that view changed when Iran’s hawkish or hardline faction came back into the presidency. Biden had a very small window of opportunity to negotiate with outgoing Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, who negotiated the original 2015 deal and whose administration fell apart after President Trump withdrew from the deal. When the hawkish Iranian faction took back power, this opportunity slipped. Iran’s hawks were vindicated for having opposed détente with the US in the first place. Since then we have argued that strategic tensions would escalate, for the following reasons: The Iranians could not trust the Americans, since they knew that any new deal could be torn up as early as January 20, 2025 if the Republican Party took back the White House. Indeed, former Vice President Mike Pence recently confirmed this view explicitly. The Iranians were not compelled to agree to the deal because high oil prices ensured that they could export oil regardless of US sanctions (Chart 2). The US no longer has the diplomatic credibility to galvanize a coalition that includes the Russians and Chinese to isolate Iran, like it did back in 2014-15. Chart 2Iranians Not Compelled To A Deal, Can Circumvent Sanctions Iranians Not Compelled To A Deal, Can Circumvent Sanctions Iranians Not Compelled To A Deal, Can Circumvent Sanctions As for Iran’s weak economy spurring social unrest and forcing Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei to agree to a deal, the US has had maximum pressure sanctions in place since 2019 and it has not produced that effect. Yes, Iran is ripe for social unrest, but the regime is consolidating power under the hardliners rather than taking any risky course of opening up and reform that could foment pro-democratic and pro-western demands for change. With oil revenues flowing in, the regime will be more capable of suppressing domestic opposition. The Americans could not trust the Iranians because they knew that they would ultimately pursue nuclear weapons regardless of any short-term revival of the 2015 deal. The Iranians have a stark choice between North Korea, which achieved nuclear weaponization and now has a powerful guarantee of future regime survival, and countries like Ukraine and Libya, which gave up nuclear weapons or programs only to be invaded by foreign armies. Moreover the Iranian nuclear deal lacked popular support, even among Obama Democrats back in 2015, not to mention today in the wake of the deal’s cancellation. The deal’s provisions would have begun expiring in 2025 under any conditions. The Israelis and Gulf Arabs opposed the deal. The Russians also switched to opposing the deal and made new demands at the last minute as a result of the US sanctions imposed on Russia in the wake of its invasion of Ukraine. The Russians do not have an interest in Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon and they supported the 2015 deal and the 2021-22 renegotiation while demanding their pound of flesh in the form of Ukraine. But they also know that Israel and the US will use military force to prevent Iran from getting the bomb, so they are not compelled to join any agreement. Crippling US sanctions over Ukraine likely caused them to interfere with the deal. Our pessimistic view is now confirmed, with the suspension of talks. True, informal talks will continue, diplomacy could somehow revive, and it is still possible for a deal to come together. But given our fundamental points above, we would give any durable diplomatic solution a low probability, say 5%. That means that the US and Iran will not engage, which means Iran will re-activate its regional militant proxies and begin pursuing nuclear weaponization. Iran has a powerful incentive to increase regime security before the dangerous leadership succession that looms over the nearly 83 year-old Khamenei and the threatening possibility of a Republican’s reelection in 2024. At present, it is unknown which side of the Iran nuclear deal talks suspended them. While the Iranians were not compelled by an international coalition to join the deal as they were in 2015, we cannot ignore the possibility the suspension in talks arises from a deal being reached between the US and core OPEC 2.0 producers (Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Kuwait). Very simply, such a deal would entail that the Arab states increase output, to ease the global shortage, in return for the US walking away from the flawed Iran deal and pledging to work with Israel and the Gulf Arabs to contain Iran. Israel and the Gulf Arabs are increasingly aligned in their goal of countering Iran under the Abraham Accords, negotiated in 2020 by the Trump administration. If the US and Gulf states agreed, then the Gulf states are likely to increase production to ease the global shortage and prolong the business cycle, meaning that oil prices could fall rather than rise as their next move. Either way they will remain volatile as a result of global developments. What Next? Escalation In The Middle East The Iranians have made substantial nuclear progress since 2018, despite Israeli attempts at sabotaging critical facilities. Today Iran stands on the brink of achieving “breakout” levels of highly enriched uranium – levels at which it is possible to construct a nuclear device (Table 1). Table 1Iran Will Reach ‘Breakout’ Nuclear Capability US-Iran Talks Break Down US-Iran Talks Break Down The suspension of talks means the Iranians will soon reach breakout capacity, which will splash across global headlines. This news will rattle global financial markets as it will point to a nuclear arms race in the most volatile of regions. There is a gap of one-to-two years between breakout uranium enrichment and deliverable nuclear weapon, according to most experts.1 However, it is much easier to monitor nuclear programs than missile programs, which means western intelligence will lose visibility when it comes to knowing precisely when Iran will obtain a functional nuclear warhead that it can mount on a ballistic missile. The Iranians are skillful at ballistic missiles. The clock will start ticking once nuclear breakout is achieved and the Israelis and Americans will be forced to respond by underscoring their red line against weaponization. Starting right away, Israel and the US will need to demonstrate publicly that they have a “military option” to prevent Iran from achieving nuclear weaponization. They will refrain from immediate military action but will seek to re-establish a credible threat through shows of force. They will also redouble their efforts to use special operations and cyber attacks to set back the Iranian programs. The Iranians will seek to deter them from attacking and will want to highlight the negative consequences. The US-Iran talks were not only about the nuclear program but also about a broader strategic détente. The Iranians will no longer rein in their regional militant proxies, whether the militias in Iraq or the Houthis in Yemen or Hezbollah in Lebanon. In effect we are now looking at a major escalation of militant attacks in the Middle East at a time when oil is already soaring. In many cases the express intent of the Iran-backed groups will be to threaten oil supply to demonstrate the leverage that they have to intimidate the US and its allies and discourage them from applying too much pressure too quickly. Bottom Line: On top of the current oil shock, we are about to have a higher risk premium injected into oil from Middle Eastern proxy conflict involving Iran. If OPEC does not act quickly to boost production then financial markets face additional commodity price pressures, on top of the existing Russia-induced supply shock. Commodity And Energy Implications Our Commodity & Energy Strategist, Bob Ryan, outlines the following implications for the oil market: In BCA Research's oil supply-demand balances, while we recognized the Geopolitical Strategy view that the US-Iran deal would not materialize, nevertheless we assumed that Iran would return up to 1.3mm b/d of production by 2H22, which would have been available for export markets. This would have given a significant boost to oil supply as the market continues to tighten. Chart 3Failure Of Iran Deal Tights Oil Supply Failure Of Iran Deal Tights Oil Supply Failure Of Iran Deal Tights Oil Supply The failure of these barrels to return to the market will result in an oil-price increase of about $15/bbl in 2023, based on our modeling (Chart 3). We can expect backwardations to increase in Brent and WTI, as demand for precautionary inventories increases. The modelled prices include the oil risk premium of ~USD 9/bbl in H2 2022 and USD 5/bbl in 2023. Relative to 2021, we expect core- OPEC - KSA, UAE and Kuwait – and total US crude supply to increase by 1.7 mmb/d and 0.65 mmb/d respectively in 2022. Compared to 2022, core-OPEC supply will level off in 2023, and will increase by 0.6 mmb/d for total US. If the US has a deal with core OPEC, then, based on the reference production levels agreed by OPEC 2.0 in July 2021, core OPEC’s production capacity could cover a large bit of the volumes markets are short (Table 2). This is due to lower monthly additions of output that was supposed to be returned to markets – now above 1mm b/d – and the lost Iranian output (Table 2). Table 2OPEC 2.0 Reference Production Levels US-Iran Talks Break Down US-Iran Talks Break Down Per the OPEC 2.0 reference production schedule released following the July 2021 meeting in Vienna, Saudi Arabia’s output is free to go to 11.5mm b/d by May, the UAE's to 3.5mm b/d, and Kuwait's to just under 3mm b/d. Iraq also could raise output, but its output is variable and it will lie at the center of the new escalation in military tensions, so we do not count it as core OPEC 2.0 production. Assuming these numbers are consistent with actual capacity for core OPEC 2.0, that means Saudi Arabia could lift production by ~ 1.1mm b/d, UAE by ~ 0.5m b/d, and Kuwait by close to 0.3mm b/d. That’s almost 2mm b/d. These reference-production levels might be on the high side of what core OPEC 2.0 is able or willing to do. But they would be close to covering most of the deficit resulting from less-than-anticipated return of 400k b/d from OPEC 2.0 producers beginning last August ( ~ 1.2mm b/d). Most of Iran’s lost output also would be covered. More than likely, these barrels will find their way to market "under the radar" (i.e., smuggled out of Iran) over the next year or so. This was one reason our geopolitical strategists did not view Iran as sufficiently pressured to sign a deal. US shale-oil output will be increasing above the 0.9 mm b/d that we forecast last month for 2022, and the 0.5mm b/d we expect next year, given the sharp price rally prompted by the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Our Commodity & Energy Strategy service will be updating our estimate next week when we publish new supply-demand balances and price forecasts. Releases from the Strategic Petroleum Reserves of the US and OECD are available to tide the market over for brief periods due to Middle East shocks or sanctions on Russian oil. Releases from the Strategic Petroleum Reserves of the US and OECD are available to tide the market over for brief periods due to Middle East shocks or sanctions on Russian oil. Over time, a significant share of these displaced Russian barrels will find their way to China, and the volumes being displaced will be re-routed to other Asian and western buyers. Investment Takeaways One of our key geopolitical views for 2022 is that oil producers have enormous strategic leverage, specifically Russia and Iran. The Ukraine war and now the suspension of US-Iran détente bears out this view. It is highly destabilizing for global politics and economy. One of our five black swans for 2022 is that Israel could attack Iran – this is a black swan because it is highly unlikely on such a short time frame. However, if the US-Iran deal cannot be salvaged, then the clock is ticking to a time when Israel and/or the US will have to decide whether to prevent Iran from going nuclear or instead choose containment strategy as with North Korea. Yet the Iran dilemma is less stable than the Korean dilemma because the Israelis are committed to preventing weaponization. The Israelis will not act unilaterally until the last possible moment, when all other options to prevent weaponization are exhausted, as the operation would be extremely difficult and they need American military assistance. If diplomacy fails on Iran, the two options for the future are a major war or a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. The latter would involve an aggressive containment strategy. The global economy faces a major new risk to energy supply as a result of this material increase in Middle East tensions. A stagflationary outcome is much more likely. Europe’s energy security will be far more vulnerable now as it tries to diversify away from Russia but faces a more volatile Middle East (Chart 4). Undoubtedly Russia and Iran recognize their tremendous leverage. China, India, and other resource imports face a larger energy shock if the Gulf Arabs do not boost production promptly. They certainly face greater volatility. China’s policy support for the economy will remain lackluster in an environment in which inflation continues to threaten economic stability. China’s internal stability was already at risk and now it will have to scramble to secure energy supplies amid a global price shock and looming Middle Eastern instability. China has no choice but to accept Russia’s decision to cut ties with the West and lash itself to China as a strategic ally for the foreseeable future (Chart 5). Chart 4The EU’s Two-Pronged Energy Insecurity US-Iran Talks Break Down US-Iran Talks Break Down ​​​​​ Chart 5China's Energy Insecurity China's Energy Insecurity China's Energy Insecurity ​​​​​ Chart 6AGo Long US And Canada / Short Saudi And UAE Go Long US And Canada / Short Saudi And UAE Go Long US And Canada / Short Saudi And UAE ​​​​​ Chart 6BGo Long US And Canada / Short Saudi And UAE Go Long US And Canada / Short Saudi And UAE Go Long US And Canada / Short Saudi And UAE ​​​​​ Geopolitical Strategy recommends investors go long US equities relative to global equities on a strategic basis. We also recommend long US / short UAE equities and long Canadian / short Saudi equities (Charts 6A and 6B). Chart 7Worst Case Oil Risk In Historical Context US-Iran Talks Break Down US-Iran Talks Break Down Unlike Ukraine, the onset of a new Middle East crisis may not come with “shock and awe.” Weeks or months may pass before Iran reaches nuclear breakout. But make no mistake, if diplomacy fails, Iran will ignite a nuclear race and activate its militant proxies, while its enemies will increase sabotage, rattle sabers, and review military options. The Iranians will not be afraid to threaten the Strait of Hormuz, their other nuclear option (Chart 7). A total blockage of Hormuz is not by any means imminent. But war becomes more likely if Iran achieves nuclear breakout and diplomacy continues to fail.   Matt Gertken Chief Geopolitical Strategist mattg@bcaresearch.com Robert P. Ryan Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1      See Ariel Eli Levite, “Can a Credible Nuclear Breakout Time With Iran Be Restored?” Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, June 24, 2021, carnegieendowment.org. See also Simon Henderson, “Iranian Nuclear Breakout: What It Is and How to Calculate It,” Washington Institute for Near East Policy, Policy Watch 3457, March 24, 2021, washingtoninstitute.org.   Strategic Themes Open Tactical Positions (0-6 Months) Open Cyclical Recommendations (6-18 Months) Regional Geopolitical Risk Matrix