The early US intelligence assessment indicates that recent strikes on Iran didn’t cause major damage to the country’s nuclear sites. However, Israeli officials believe that the combined military actions of the US and Israel have delayed Iran’s nuclear program by two years. Israel argues that Iran’s program was already delayed by two years before the US operation. However, Israeli officials are determined to stop Iran from easily rebuilding its nuclear capabilities. The situation remains tense and could lead to conflicts unless there is a change in the Iranian leadership, which is often left out of discussions. It seems Israel will keep watch and may try to disrupt Iran’s nuclear activities. This scenario blends intelligence with military strategy amid ongoing tension between long-time rivals. Initial American intelligence suggests little physical damage to Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, which may seem to lessen the impact of the strikes. Nonetheless, this does not capture the broader goals of their joint mission. From Tel Aviv’s viewpoint, Iran’s timeline for nuclear development has already been extended by two years, a conclusion reached even before the latest strikes. This implies that Israeli officials see the recent attacks not as a start but as a continuation of efforts to maintain that delay and prevent any swift rebuilding. Their strategy is an ongoing campaign rather than a single action. Netanyahu and his defense team show readiness to act consistently instead of just reacting in urgency. Their aim goes beyond halting progress; they want to create regular disruptions. It’s no longer about one-off attacks. They’ve established a pattern to keep up pressure, even if growth seems to be stalled. This strategy depends heavily on surveillance and timely action as much as it does on airstrikes and sabotage. The underlying theme requires constant vigilance. Acceleration in Iran’s nuclear activities could happen quietly, without any headlines, and Israel cannot afford to give them any space. Their goal is to restrict not just figuratively but literally the ability to enrich uranium or develop missile sites. Air bases, logistics, and enrichment facilities are all targets under this strategy. Raisi’s silence on the issue has been noteworthy, and what he doesn’t say is significant. In military and political circles, this silence suggests a lack of confidence or perhaps indicates that Iran is still assessing the damage, which could signify hesitation in their response. When public statements are absent, covert adjustments are likely taking place. For those interested in future developments, the risk premiums related to geopolitical tension aren’t merely speculative; they’re based on actual state actions and efforts to limit the growth of adversarial capabilities. This creates temporary imbalances in anticipated market volatility, leading to sudden shifts not grounded in material change. High volatility related to Gulf assets may not be limited to oil prices alone. In summary, we need to consider factors beyond just visible weaponry or public statements. Timelines, hesitations, and strategic targeting create a pattern that demands responsive actions rather than mere predictions. Short-term options are more appealing not just because of macro changes, but due to the nature of immediate retaliation and sudden changes in tactics. We should also examine trailing indicators—like logistics delays, power fluctuations near known development sites, and shifts in air defense systems. These are all part of a broader strategy. Calculated patience doesn’t equate to inaction. As traders, it’s crucial to understand how responsive measures can turn into proactive disruptions. Those with advanced intelligence can act before news breaks. Movements in regional currencies, defense stocks, and shipping indexes might serve as an early warning system. Given the events of the past month, we should be preparing for ongoing pressure in various forms rather than waiting for a climactic moment.

here to set up a live account on VT Markets now