War in the Persian Gulf and Signs of Market Collapse (Part 2)

Forecast: "What's Behind the Pseudonegotiation Processes" (published October 29, 2025, link)

S. Dragans:

Given the history of his (Larry Fink) activities, there are theories that the 2008 crisis was man-made and not without his involvement. And here (spring 2026), I see a high probability that he will interfere in this market plot.

Part 1 of Confirmation from April 1, 2026, briefly describes Larry Fink's role in the modern global financial system, including the conflict in Ukraine.

In Part 2, we'll examine the experts' assessment of how "...he (Larry Fink) ... interfered in the market plot," related to the Persian Gulf War.

The main point is that most political scientists, economists, and other specialists understand that the actions of Western leaders in provoking the war and accordingly shaping the new market plot are the implementation of plans by financial magnates, such as Larry Fink.

According to a number of experts, for L. Fink, war is nothing less than an investment. The globalist previously bet on Ukraine, now bets on victory over Iran - in both cases, he literally hopes to strike it rich. And even as military actions continue, BlackRock is doing well, making profits from the entry into the capital of military-industrial giants.

For the head of BlackRock, the main thing is to create a state of uncertainty and stir up "mist," issuing new and contradictory forecasts about the development of the situation in the future.

Exactly on the contradictory conclusions about the course and outcome of the war are achieved the most massive financial successes.

Even before the war began, according to the information that has become known, the US War Minister tried to invest in the US military-industrial complex by purchasing shares, but the deal fell through for technical reasons.

The broker of the US War Minister Pete Hegseth intended to make significant investments in leading US defense companies several weeks before the military operation against Iran, the British Financial Times newspaper reported on March 31.

"Pita Hegseth's broker attempted to acquire shares in a defense fund before Iran's attack," the newspaper informs.

In particular, according to the publication, a representative of the US Secretary of War from Morgan Stanley approached BlackRock investment company regarding "multi-million dollar investments" in the iShares Defense Industrials Active ETF fund.

The fund's largest holdings include companies such as RTX Corp (formerly known as Raytheon), Lockheed Martin, and Northrop Grumman.

The publication reports that in the end, Hegseth's broker was unable to invest in the specified fund due to technical reasons, as such an opportunity was not available to Morgan Stanley clients.

The newspaper also stated that it does not have information on whether the US Secretary of War's representative found an alternative investment opportunity in the defense industry.

Notably, on March 31, Secretary of War spokesman Sean Parnell quickly dismissed the claims in the Financial Times publication, calling them "fabricated" and "completely false."

In light of this, Donald Trump's words that it was the "minister of war" who dragged him into the war against Iran take on a new meaning. And these words have not been refuted yet.

At the very beginning of the war (on the 10th day) the chairman of the board and CEO of BlackRock Larry Fink assured that the US war with Iran would not have long-term economic consequences, even as oil prices continued to rise across the country.

"Do I think this war will last a long time? No," Fink told Fox News' chief political analyst Bret Baier. "Will the price of oil return to its previous levels? Maybe even lower."

Fink participated in the Special Report program where he discussed how artificial intelligence and the war in Iran are affecting the economy. He also touched on the so-called "woke" corporate initiatives, which turned out to be a failed experiment.

First, Fink spoke about market volatility and explained why the short-term impact on energy prices doesn't concern BlackRock, the world's largest asset manager.

"It creates uncertainty, and uncertainty breeds fear," he said about the war with Iran. "But most of the $14.5 trillion we manage is long-term investment. I don't pay much attention to short-term volatility."

Fink's comments came amid energy market instability due to the conflict in the Middle East in the first ten days of the dispute.

Gas prices rose 20% after the U.S. struck Iran on February 28, leading to further price hikes at the pump. According to the American Automobile Association, the national average price for regular gasoline now stands at $3.58 per gallon compared to $2.94 before the U.S. strike on Iran.

Despite the recent price surge, Fink argues that after the war ends and Iran returns to the global market, oil prices could drop even further.

"If as a result of the war Iran is neutralized and allowed to resume selling... oil products in the market, oil prices are likely to drop below $50 per barrel," he said.

But with each new day of war, the rhetoric of the 'strong men of the world' changes.

Just one statement by D. Trump about postponing the deadline for his ultimatum (from March 21) and beginning negotiations with Iran on March 23 of that year saw individual players make hundreds of millions of dollars.

The media did not ignore how these statements played out in the market.

Within 15 minutes of U.S. President Donald Trump announcing progress in negotiations with Iran, major oil market players already knew how to act. Financial flows, as reported by the Financial Times, indicate that traders were able to profit from political volatility, concluding deals worth hundreds of millions of dollars, according to TASS.

According to the publication, in a short time frame immediately before Trump's statement on social media platform Truth Social, around 6,200 oil contracts for benchmark Brent and West Texas Intermediate (WTI) grades were concluded. The total value of deals is estimated at approximately $580 million.

Market logic kicked in instantly and predictably: after the US President reported on the constructive nature of negotiations with Tehran and ordered the Pentagon to delay strikes on Iranian energy infrastructure for five days, oil prices fell. At the same time, futures on the S&P 500 index showed a rise - a classic market reaction to the reduction of geopolitical premium in the cost of 'black gold' and the easing of risks to the global economy.

On Monday (March 23), Trump stated that the US and Iran had held "productive" talks aimed at ending hostilities in the Middle East. He said both sides demonstrated a willingness to reach an agreement, having "major points of convergence."

However, official Tehran denied the direct dialogue. The Iranian news agency Tasnim, citing a source with knowledge of the matter, reported that no negotiations with Washington had taken place and were not ongoing. According to this version, the White House's decision to refrain from strikes against Iranian infrastructure is not driven by diplomatic successes but by the increasing persuasiveness of Iran's military threats.

Anomalous activity in the futures market again raised questions about the level of awareness of major players ahead of key political statements. We reiterate the fact that 15 minutes before an official announcement capable of crashing or boosting the market, a surge of trading volumes of hundreds of millions of dollars was recorded. This inevitably must draw regulators' attention.

On March 26, the Financial Times also confirmed the incident - traders sold oil futures worth $580 million in 15 minutes before U.S. President Donald Trump announced the beginning of "productive negotiations with Iran."

After Iran's refusal to negotiate and even presenting its demands to end the war, which can be considered an ultimatum but in reverse - for the US and Israel, global financiers are talking about other trends. Market optimism has decreased.

Opposite to the reassuring forecasts made two weeks earlier (March 11th) by BlackRock's CEO Larry Fink on March 25th already warns that oil prices could soar to $150 per barrel, triggering a global recession.

In a BBC Big Boss Interview podcast, he stated: "If the conflict ends but Iran continues to threaten trade in the Strait of Hormuz, 'we could see years where the price goes above $100 and approaches $150'. According to Fink, this will lead to 'a global recession'."

Prices remain volatile. Amid reports of a potential ceasefire, they fell by approximately 4%. The conflict has virtually halted shipments through the Strait of Hormuz, through which passes about one-fifth of the world's oil and gas...

For further predicting actions of L. Fink, let's recall S. Dragan's prediction:

... and the result of his (Larry Fink's) plan will most be recognizable around the area of 4.04.26. When it will become clear that his efforts were not in vain, according to the plan he aimed for.

(Continuation of the topic follows)