What's The Probability That One Of Our Geo-Conflicts Could Go Hot?

From Ukraine to Iran to Venezuela, our country is currently involved in a series of near-geoconflicts. It’s a situation that we’ve never seen in the modern era. Yet most people seem totally oblivious to these possible dangers. It is especially true for Wall Street, where most of the investing class dismisses any risk with a shrug. The urgency of these conflicts and the need for immediate attention cannot be overstated.

This ho-hum attitude comes because we’re looking at each conflict individually. We mistakenly believe that because it’s unlikely that a given conflict will escalate, it’s also unlikely that any of these conflicts will escalate. That’s wrong thinking. The potential consequences of these conflicts escalating into a hot war are grave and should not be underestimated.

Our current situation, with multiple conflicts each with an uncertain outcome, is a perfect fit for a mathematical discipline called Probability Theory. This unique approach could provide valuable insights into our current geopolitical risks.

Let’s take a unique approach to our current situation. We’ll assign a ‘Probability Score’ to each of the geo-conflicts that the United States is involved in, ranging from ‘0’ for highly unlikely to ‘10’ for almost certain to occur. This may seem somewhat crude, but you may be surprised at the insight this kind of analysis can provide.

Indeed, you may disagree with the scores I assign to each conflict. If so, please join us in the comment section with your estimates. It is not an exact science, but it aims to provide an overview of the current geopolitical risks that the US faces. Your perspectives are crucial in refining our Probability Scores, and the more we add, the better our assessment will be.

Criteria

So, the question we’re asking is whether any of these conflicts is likely to involve the United States in direct military confrontation. Something that would go beyond merely supplying logistical support, as we do for Ukraine and Israel, to the actual use of US weapons and personnel in combat.

Israel vs. Palestine

The conflict in Gaza and the West Bank has been ongoing for nearly two years. Although the IDF is dependent upon US-supplied weapons and logistics, it is doubtful that it would require direct US combat support. However, this might change should an outside force join Hamas in the battle. There are rumors that Ansar Allah would consider sending ground troops to Gaza, but cannot transport those troops to Gaza; if that were to occur, it would dramatically change the dynamics. Nonetheless, I’ll still give the probability of direct US Combat support in Gaza as very low. Score 1.0

Israel vs Yemen (Ansar Allah)

The exchange between Israel and Yemen is another ongoing conflict that, as yet, does not involve the US, other than as logistical support for Israel. Recently, Israel killed the Yemeni leadership, and Ansar Allah (also known as the Houthis) vowed retaliation. It is this retaliation that is most interesting. On September 7, Ansar Allah launched a slow-moving drone from Yemen over a thousand kilometers from Ramon airport, where the drone hit a terminal, closing the airport for some time. But here’s the significance of this attack: this drone was not detected or shot down by Israeli Air Defense, the vaunted “Iron Dome.” It indicated, to the world, that Israel’s air defense may be substandard, far below the capability needed to ward off a major attack. That fact alone may be sufficient to embolden Israel’s enemies, of which there are many, to engage in just such an attack. If that were to occur, the United States, under the Trump Administration, would almost certainly engage in the conflict.
Score 1.5

Israel vs Iran

On June 22, the United States directly attacked the country of Iran in Operation Midnight Hammer, the purpose of which was to mitigate Iran’s ability to produce a nuclear bomb. Although the Americans’ chief objective was to deny Iran’s offensive nuclear capability, it’s more reasonable to see this attack as continued support for Israel’s attack begun on June 13. Recently, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has indicated a willingness to “go after” Iran once again. In light of the recent Shanghai Cooperation Summit, where Iranian President Pezeshkian strengthened Iran’s ties to China, Israel may look to attack before Chinese military hardware can reach Iran. This dynamic situation promises to get even tighter. Score 2.0

Russia vs Ukraine

The war in Ukraine has raged for over 3 ½ years, and it’s easy to assume that it is merely a stalled conflict, with little happening now. Nothing could be further from reality. Both sides have suffered significant damage, with the much smaller Ukrainian population at the beginning of the war, less than 40 million, incurring a greater percentage loss than Russia, with a population of over 140 million. Consequently, Ukraine is currently experiencing a decline in human resources on the front lines of the conflict. Additionally, Russia appears to be increasing its pace of attack with two missile/drone combination volleys of over 500 each. Russia has increased its attacks on Zaporizhzhia, Sumy, and now Odessa. It’s crucial to note that Odessa is strategically one of the most important cities in Ukraine, and the third-largest in population. However, critically, Odessa is Ukraine’s principal port; its loss would be devastating, interrupting supplies and Ukraine’s ability to ship products overseas. President Trump responded to these developments by threatening to increase sanctions on Russia, but did not specify what those might be. If Ukraine deteriorates further, the question becomes what step might the US take beyond sanctions? Leaders from France, Germany, and the United Kingdom are on record as encouraging the President to provide troops in some peacekeeping or support effort for Ukraine. The Ukraine War is highly fluid and subject to dramatic changes and development.

Score 2.0

United States vs. Venezuela

Recently, President Trump ordered the deployment of a Naval Flotilla off the shores of Venezuela. The objective is to interdict any illicit drugs coming from that South American country to the US. However, this is far from an ordinary Coast Guard Operation, although that would be the usual response. No, this operation appears to be significant enough to support a land invasion. Included in the operation are three Aegis-class guided missile destroyers, several amphibious assault vessels, overhead surveillance aircraft, and a nuclear-powered fast-attack submarine. On board those ships are up to 4,000 US Marines ready to go into action at the Commander’s orders. However, the President insists that the operation is strictly aimed at drug interdiction. Indeed, so far, the flotilla has destroyed one outboard motor launch, reportedly carrying illicit contraband. This operation warrants close monitoring, as any force of this magnitude carries a risk that is greater than zero.

Score 1.0

So, the question we’re asking is what is the likelihood (probability) that one of these geo-conflicts may turn hot — that is, deteriorate to the point that the United States will commit forces (land, sea, or air) to direct combat. Probability Theory is looking only at the collective risk of all the geo-conflicts combined, and NOT at any one conflict.

The calculation of the overall probability is determined by adding the “scores” (probabilities) together. There is a 7.5% chance, out of 10, that we will be in a significant conflict in the near future. Put another way, there is a 75% chance, using our scores, that America will be embroiled in a hot war shortly.

Please note that my assignment of scores was subjective, and you may disagree. Again, please feel free to assign your own scores in the comment section.

Also, the selection of conflicts was subjective. Most notably, I have omitted such potential conflicts as Taiwan, Syria, Libya, and others.

But here’s the point: while we may debate the score for any individual geo-conflicts, the fact remains that the more conflicts we’re involved in, the more they dramatically escalate our potential risk. Under this Administration, the number of disputes continues to increase, something that most of us fervently prayed would not happen. But the reality is, as a country, we are continuing to climb the “risk ladder.”

Follow me here on ValueSide for more articles like this.