Think Differently. Solve the Impossible.

Listen on:
Apple Podcasts | Spotify

This episode is not about choosing sides.

It’s about how:

• nations define threats
• the public simplifies wars into moral stories
• labels compress complexity
• incentives shape policy
• systems behave differently than people assume

The central question: what problem does each believe it is solving, and are the reasons real or surface-level explanations for deeper fears?

Listen on:

About the Host

Daniel Stih is an aerospace engineer, software engineer, indoor environmental consultant, and author of 12 books. Through engineering, investigations, and interdisciplinary research, he explores how people define problems, interpret evidence, and make conclusions when there's uncertainty. Learn more in Why I Think This Way.

Transcript

Welcome to the Daniel Stih Podcast. 

A friend of mine posted a picture on Facebook at a gas station. The caption said, “My first fill up at this price. I'm sure glad we're great again, are you? "

What struck me wasn't the politics, it was how much complexity had been compressed into one moment at the gas pump.

Hidden inside that one sentence are assumptions about the president, oil markets, war, energy independence, global trading, patriotism, corporations, and who controls gas prices.

The more I thought about it, the more I realized the entire conversation about Israel, Iran, war, and oil may be a conversation about systems people don't realize they're participating in.

Most geopolitics issues - most people - experience them indirectly, not through military intelligence reports and briefings, but through the gas prices, the groceries, the inflation, the headlines.

Once gas prices move, people immediately start assuming there's a causation. The president caused this, that country caused it, the war caused it, the global system's not that simple.

Led me to a bigger question, what problem is the war really solving? Now, the answer changes depending on who you ask. What assumptions people begin with, and what they think the threat is.

One person might say it's about terrorism. Another, it's about nuclear weapons. Another, this is about regional dominance.

Another person might say this is about oil. Another person might say it's about preserving Israel and a state. What interests me is not which side someone supports, it's how does someone decide what the core problem is?

Because once the problem is defined, the rest of the system starts making sense. The problem with the word war. A word creates assumptions.

One of the first things that stood out to me during this conflict, I talked about it in a previous episode, what does the word war mean? What does ceasefire mean? Language keeps changing.

I didn't see this coming. I talked about it when it was first called war, because I thought it was an official war. I didn't realize that rarely, if ever, our war is officially declared anymore.

So what counts as war? And now it's changed. Then now, is it a conflict?

Is it a military operation or even a ceasefire? And none of these are clean either. So the public hears a word like war and assumes, you know, clear objectives, clear beginning and end.

And again, geopolitics doesn't work that way, which led me to another question. What assumptions are hidden inside the explanations people give for this war? What is the problem we're trying to solve?

The single-cause trap.

A common pattern in political discussions is people reduce complex systems into single-cause stories such as, the US supports Israel because of PACs, that's political action committees, giving money to politicians and lobbying.

Another one is, it's about oil, or it's about religion, or it's about terrorism. There is truth inside each of these. The stronger a claim becomes, the more predictive burden it carries.

If one variable completely explained the system, then you'd expect the system to behave according to that one variable. But of course, reality doesn't work that way. Oil may actually be one of the most revealing parts of this conflict.

It exposed how many misunderstand what energy independence means. So many Americans may have assumed, if we produce our own oil, then the Middle East conflicts can affect us.

But of course, oil is priced globally, and you have the market, so even if the United States produces enormous amounts, disruptions can affect the prices and the transportation and food cost and jet fuel, as companies are still allowed to compete globally. So production independence doesn't mean price independence.

It really surprised me talking to people, and I asked them, how many assumed oil disruption, we can't get enough oil now that we went to war with Iran, was unexpected, because the Strait of Hormuz has been discussed as a major global energy

vulnerability for decades. It's been known that interconnectedness between the Middle East global prices, shipping routes, financial markets. So this was not hidden information, which raised another question.

Questions pop in my head. What if? How does this assumption work out? Did they know?

If these risks were already understood, like, if we go to a war with Iran, they're going to do that, then what problem was important enough for leaders to solve, maybe you think it's nuclear weapons, that they're willing to accept those risks?

That also exposed, though, another insight, that the corporations, the governments, and we citizens are not optimizing for the same thing. The consumers, of course, want low gas prices.

Governments want stability and strategic alliances, in this case, Israel. And oil companies are gonna optimize for profit, shareholder value and competition.

And I'm being competitive in the market, so the deeper I looked into the phrase, what does energy independence mean? The more I realized how that is complicated by itself, and honestly, a whole nother episode, what does energy independence mean?

Does it mean oil, solar, power, wind? A lot of assumptions in on big spreadsheet there.

Most importantly, I thought, if they're not worried about the gas prices because corporations are still going to make money, and what problem is it really solving? And what problem does Israel believe the war with Iran is going to solve?

It's not just another rocket attack. Israel frames threats through a survival lens as a state surrounding the future identity of the state itself. Since 1979 in the Iranian Revolution, Iran's leadership positioned itself strongly anti-Israel.

Iran does not recognize Israel as a legitimate state and has repeatedly supported the Palestinian cause against Israel. Now, this is where discussions can become emotionally explosive. Underneath the military language may be a deeper fear.

To those who live in Israel, who are Israeli citizens, what happens if Israel loses its ability to maintain a majority state? Now, that doesn't explain every action in this war, but it does shape how threats are interpreted.

Because imagine if your state begins viewing challenges through literally a survival framework, then a compromise becomes harder. And it's no longer a political issue, it's literally your existence. Well, that led me to another thought.

Wars can continue even when the costs rise. The gas prices, the casualties. Vietnam's an example.

At some point, the objective shifts from, let's achieve victory to let's avoid appearing weak. And then another thing stood out to me.

The Iranian nuclear issue didn't appear overnight either. Neither did the vulnerability of the strait that oil is shipped through.

The energy prices and inflation in financial markets, these have been all these risks and structures have been known for decades. So if these vulnerabilities were already known, could the situation have been planned differently?

Not perfectly, but differently. Because one of the defining features of fragile systems is not simply that disruptions occur, but that the known vulnerabilities remain exposed after they're identified. So that led me to this thought.

Modern societies have partially disconnected military action from the visible domestic sacrifices. Historically, wars felt different. You had rationing, drafts, economic controls.

Also, that's literally when a war was officially declared, which is why they don't officially declare them, right? I know that now. I do, I learned.

What does the word war mean? So, the system behaved differently because a country acknowledged, this is not normal.

Whereas today, conflicts are linguistically softened into, these are operations, precision strikes, limited conflicts, while the economic system largely continues behaving like things ordinary, peacetime market activity, which it doesn't, of course.

Gas prices, food prices go up.

So, what would happen if military engagement automatically triggered? This is trying to solve a problem now. Triggered some kind of domestic economics stabilization mechanisms.

We don't need to officially declare war, but if you engage military even for 60 days, that's going to immediately limit how much trading, how the market can do trading, fix gas prices, whatever.

And not because the markets are evil, and not because corporations are villains. It's because wars are not ordinary market conditions.

For example, if the military engagement creates economic instability at home, especially in the energy markets, shouldn't certain protections automatically activate? Maybe a temporary fuel price fix. Anti-speculation measures for the market trading.

Export restrictions. If the consequences are real for the conflict, then the systems should behave as if this event is real. Right now, there's asymmetry.

The executive branch can engage military action quickly, while our downstream economic consequences become distributed across the public through inflation, fuel prices, and as if we should just accept this, and we can't do anything about it.

Solve that problem. Now, some might argue, well, it's unfair for corporations. They're responding rationally to markets.

But another argument is if wars imposed immediate structural economic accountability, then solves another problem potentially.

The military engagements themselves would be approached with the seriousness they deserve, because one thing history shows is when the costs diffuse, get delayed, or are psychologically hidden, then systems become comfortable with sustaining

conflict. And this connects back to the language. When societies stop formally behaving like they're at quote war, becomes easier to psychologically treat the war something abstract in distance. It's happening over there.

The consequences are real.

So, my final solve the problem here section of this episode what interests me the most, not which side is purely right or wrong, it's how do people define the problem.

Because once a problem is defined incorrectly, the entire system organizes around solving the wrong problem. If the conflict is viewed as only terrorism, you get one set of solutions.

If it's viewed as a regional dominance, you get another, if it's viewed as oil, you get another. If you're Israel and it's viewed as identity and long-term state continuity, you get another. The problem definition determines the solution space.

That's the most important thing about modern conflicts. People are often arguing about solutions while operating from completely different models of what the actual problem is. And once you notice that pattern, you start seeing it everywhere.

The moment people stop asking, what problem are we actually trying to solve? Then systems tend to continue operating on assumptions that no one is examining anymore. Thanks for listening.

I'm Daniel Stih.