Nouriel Roubini

Well, there are two options.

One is to de-escalate and walk away from this war and get to a ceasefire, but they're going to get a ceasefire without a deal with Iran, and Iran's going to control the Strait of Hormuz.

It's going to threaten the Gulf and the supply of oil.

You have a regime that's actually much more radical today than it was before because Muftajah, Khamenei's son, is more radical than his father.

They're going to rebuild...

ballistic missiles.

They're going to build even more drones.

They're going to even try to enrich the uranium they have to upgrade and have a bomb.

So it's a disaster.

You know, Trump is already behind in the polls.

This war has been a bit of a failure.

But now, going away from it implies it's going to for sure lose the midterms, not just the House, but probably the Senate.

So I think that in spite of all the rhetoric about negotiations and getting a ceasefire, my more likely scenario, I give you the two-thirds probability, is one in which the U.S.

has to escalate and finish the job.

And escalate means take over Karg Island, try to take over even the state of Hormuz, try to reopen it, try to have regime collapse, and win this war, and finally have a more stable Middle East.

It's a very risky one, because if you take that chance, you might win,

But there's also a chance that you lose, and then they beat the bloc even more, they destroy even more energy supplies of the Gulfies, and then you end up in 1970s stagflation.

But in my view, escalating and winning is more likely than escalating and losing, and given the politics and the electoral dynamics, you'll have to escalate.

Well, if you escalate and win, it means that you take over Karg Island.

You cut off by 90% the revenues of the government.