I’ve reached a point where the marketplace of ideas feels broken. The conversation around the Iran war, especially the discussion about oil prices and the Strait of Hormuz, has been less about understanding events and more about reacting to every twitch in the market.

This realization hit me last weekend when I watched otherwise smart commentators react breathlessly to oil futures spiking. Writers like Nate Silver and Derek Thompson framed the surge in prices as a potentially catastrophic moment for the Trump administration, a Rubicon that could permanently damage the president’s economic credibility.

That logic makes sense in theory. Gas prices are one of the most politically sensitive indicators in American life. If they rise sharply and stay elevated, the economic narrative can turn quickly against any administration. But what bothered me wasn’t the conclusion. It was how little anyone seemed to know about the mechanics behind the story.

Politics Politics Politics is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

The Strait of Hormuz, through which a massive share of the world’s oil flows, became the center of speculation. Could Iran shut it down? Had it ever been fully closed before? What would the United States do if shipping lanes were mined?

These are complex questions. Yet much of the discussion reduced them to the most basic possible analysis: oil prices go up, oil prices go down.

The Problem With Market Narratives and the Age of Info Slop

Over the course of a single night, I found myself obsessively researching the issue. I dug into the Iran–Iraq tanker wars of the 1980s, when both countries targeted shipping in the Persian Gulf. I looked at how mines were deployed in the Strait of Hormuz and how the United States eventually intervened to escort tankers and protect trade routes.

The historical lesson was clear. Even during the worst periods of that conflict, the strait never truly closed. Oil shipments slowed and risks increased, but global energy markets adapted.

By Monday morning, the markets themselves seemed to confirm the lesson. Oil prices surged, then dropped back below their previous levels. The panic narrative collapsed almost as quickly as it appeared.

What replaced it was not clarity but confusion. Rumors circulated that Iran was mining the strait. Other reports suggested ships were still passing through after turning off their transponders. At one point, a claim that the U.S. Navy had escorted a tanker through the strait briefly moved markets before the White House denied it.

This constant churn of speculation reveals a deeper problem: very few people actually know what is happening.

In theory, the modern information environment should make us better informed. Instead, it often produces the opposite result. Analysts extrapolate sweeping conclusions from tiny fragments of data, while social media amplifies every rumor until it looks like evidence.

The result is what I can only describe as “info slop.” Bits of partially verified information get passed along, combined, and reinterpreted until the original facts are almost impossible to distinguish from the speculation built around them.

In a normal news cycle, that dynamic is frustrating. But in a war, it is dangerous.

The Iran conflict carries enormous stakes. A prolonged fight could reshape the Middle East, disrupt global energy markets, or even trigger a wider geopolitical confrontation. Yet the public conversation about the war often resembles message-board debates rather than serious analysis.

We are arguing over rumors about oil shipments and naval escorts while the broader strategic picture remains murky.

Part of the problem is structural. During wartime, the actors with the most reliable information have strong incentives not to share it. Governments conceal details to protect military operations. Adversaries spread misinformation to manipulate perceptions.

Even seemingly straightforward facts become difficult to confirm. Was a school struck by a missile because of a U.S. attack, an Iranian malfunction, or something else entirely? Did Iran mine shipping lanes, or were markets reacting to a rumor?

In many cases, the honest answer is simply that we do not know.

And yet the conversation continues as if every piece of incomplete information carries definitive meaning.

Stepping Back From the Noise

For me, the lesson is simple. If the discourse is making you feel more confident about events you barely understand, it may not actually be informing you. It may simply be feeding the human instinct to fill gaps in knowledge with speculation.

The war with Iran could become one of the defining geopolitical events of this era. It could destabilize a region, reshape energy markets, or even trigger regime change inside Iran itself.

But right now, much of what passes for analysis is just noise layered on top of uncertainty. The healthiest response might be the hardest one: consume less of it. Read less news that pretends to provide clarity where none exists.

We don’t know what’s happening yet. And pretending otherwise doesn’t make us smarter.

Chapters

00:00:00 - Intro

00:02:18 - Thomas Massie

00:06:24 - Iran Discourse

00:16:59 - Kirk Bado on Iran

00:32:36 - Update

00:33:36 - Oil

00:34:51 - SAVE America Act

00:40:41 - AI Hiring

00:42:49 - Kirk Bado on Iran, con’t

00:54:38 - Kirk Bado on Texas

01:13:09 - Steelers Talk

01:22:16 - Wrap-up

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.politicspoliticspolitics.com/subscribe