Original Title: AI in Trump’s 3-D Chess Match
Original Author: Andy Kessler, WSJ
Original Compilation: Peggy, BlockBeats
Editor's Note: In traditional geopolitics, oil has long been regarded as the core resource of war and power. However, as the importance of artificial intelligence and semiconductor technology continues to rise, new strategic variables are emerging. This article presents a clear judgment: in the competition of the 21st century, "silicon" is replacing oil as the key resource influencing national strength and the form of warfare.
The article begins with recent international conflicts and energy dynamics, tracing the energy and military supply chains among Venezuela, Iran, and Russia, and analyzing how oil prices, drone warfare, and global sanctions systems intertwine in real-world conflicts. As the narrative progresses, the author shifts the perspective from traditional energy to technological competition, discussing the strategic significance of advanced chips, semiconductor manufacturing, and AI computing power in today's geopolitics.
In the author's view, when AI can simulate war outcomes on a large scale, future conflicts may form a new deterrence logic: potential adversaries, foreseeing defeat, may choose to avoid war. Thus, "silicon-driven AI advantage" is not only reshaping the resource landscape but may also alter the fundamental rules of war and peace in the 21st century.
Below is the original text:
War and politics have never been easy games. The current situation is more like a "three-dimensional chess match" with multiple layers.
Energy Chess: Oil Still Determines the First Layer of War Logic
Venezuela and Iran have successively faced "decapitation-style" strikes. This is no coincidence; both countries have long been important oil sources for China and have also indirectly supplied energy to nations like Cuba and North Korea through China. More subtly, if oil prices rise to $100 per barrel, it would help Russia pay for its war in Ukraine.
At the same time, Iran is a key supplier of drones to Russia (Note: In the Russia-Ukraine war, Russia has extensively used Iranian-produced Shahed series suicide drones. Due to their low cost and large numbers, these drones are often used for sustained harassment, depleting air defense missiles, and attacking energy infrastructure.). In this complex chess game, this is equivalent to a "check."
From a geopolitical perspective, an ideal path to victory might include two key steps.
First, the U.S. supports the establishment of more pro-Western regimes in Venezuela and Iran, significantly increasing oil production to add a portion of supply to the global market unrestricted by sanctions.
Second, the U.S. gains actual control over the Strait of Hormuz after the war, through which about 20% of the world's oil transportation must pass.
If these two points are achieved, could oil prices fall to $40 per barrel? It is not impossible. If so, Russia's war machine would be severely weakened. This would be another "check" on the chessboard.
I recently visited Pearl Harbor and was reminded of a certain similarity in history: Before World War II, Japan relied on the U.S. for about 80% of its oil. In July 1941, the U.S. froze Japanese assets, effectively imposing an oil embargo, and history quickly slid into war. Will history rhyme again?
Silicon as the New Oil: The Struggle for Strategic Resources in the AI Era
However, perhaps what matters more is no longer oil. For years, I have been saying something that may now be becoming reality: Silicon is replacing oil as the new strategic resource.
Washington should include the most advanced AI chips in a strict military technology control system, just like uranium. Because, in a sense, AI itself is a weapon.
Unlike oil, silicon is essentially just sand. What is truly scarce is not the raw material but the manufacturing processes and talent systems.
Equally deterring are the rapidly spreading images: Nicolas Maduro blindfolded and handcuffed, the destroyed residence of Ali Khamenei circulating on TikTok, and the footage of sunken Iranian naval vessels.
Currently, the U.S. and Israel almost completely control Iranian airspace. Iran, like Venezuela, uses Russian-made S-300 air defense systems. If I were a buyer, I would probably consider a refund.
AI Warfare: Technology Is Changing the Form of Conflict
In this series of actions, artificial intelligence is playing an increasingly important role.
AI is likely used to analyze the movement trajectories of personnel and weapons to lock onto key targets—this is also the technical basis for the U.S. to capture Maduro and carry out strikes against Iranian leadership. AI is essentially an extremely powerful pattern recognition tool. At the same time, the U.S. is also using AI for battlefield scenario simulations. Combined with precision strike capabilities, these technologies can significantly reduce civilian casualties. It is for this reason that the controversy between Anthropic and the Pentagon over the use of AI tools seems both shortsighted and unsettling to me.
The form of warfare is changing. The Carter administration's attempt to rescue hostages in Iran in 1980 ultimately failed, but with today's technology, the outcome might have been completely different. Maduro's arrest is a real-world example. The strategy of "small ground forces + high-precision air strikes" proposed by Rumsfeld may finally have met its true technical conditions. War is no longer about "shock and awe" but more like "precision strikes, rapid withdrawal." Ground forces are smaller but rely on high-value intelligence resources—for example, Israel once infiltrated Tehran's traffic camera system to track leadership movements. This model can be called "sneakers on the ground."
What remains to be seen is whether this "precision warfare" model can continue to be effective and whether new, more pro-Western regimes can quickly reintegrate into the global market. I am somewhat optimistic about this. Compared to wars lasting years, conflicts lasting 12 or 50 days are clearly more manageable.
Other pieces on the chessboard are still moving. Iran launched retaliatory missiles at 11 countries, meaning at least 10 of them could become potential customers for Israel's "Iron Dome" and the U.S. "Patriot" air defense systems, or need to replenish interceptor inventories. If arms sales are tied to joining the Abraham Accords, the chess game becomes even more complex.
Fund flows are also a key piece. The Wall Street Journal reported that the crypto exchange Binance was used to funnel about $1.7 billion to Iran-supported groups, including the Houthis. Such channels should be blocked. Interestingly, this amount is the same as the cash the Obama administration sent to Iran in 2016.
From historical experience, oil and gas are often concentrated in the hands of authoritarian regimes, or more accurately, controlled by oligarchs and elites. The Kremlin controls more than half of Gazprom's shares, and Khamenei is said to personally control a financial empire worth about $95 billion. In contrast, "silicon" thrives more easily in free-market environments, such as the U.S., Taiwan, South Korea, and the Netherlands, which provides key technologies for semiconductor equipment.
Free societies still have institutional advantages. If silicon becomes the new oil and drives the AI revolution, future wars may become more "calculable." AI can not only simulate battles but also conduct complete war games. If Maduro or Khamenei had been able to truly simulate the outcome of advanced fighter jets and precision weapons against their vulnerable air defense systems, they might have made different choices. Other countries will obviously conduct such simulations seriously. After all, ChatGPT Plus costs only $20 per month.
Could this become the "peace dividend" of the AI era?
During the Cold War, people believed nuclear war would not happen due to "Mutually Assured Destruction" (MAD). This logic was terrifying but has indeed worked so far. In the future, if AI can use large-scale simulations to show opponents the clear outcome of war, it would be a new logic: SAD (Strongly Assured Destruction). In such a scenario, negotiations might become more attractive than war.
Checkmate.
Original link
