The gig economy has reshaped global labour markets with remarkable speed. According to a 2023 McKinsey report, approximately 36% of employed respondents in the United States identified as independent workers, encompassing freelancers, contractors, gig platform participants, and self-employed professionals. Similar patterns are emerging across Europe and Asia-Pacific.
Much of the discourse surrounding this shift has focused on income volatility, benefits portability, and worker classification. These are important issues. But there is a less visible, more structurally significant challenge that receives comparatively little attention: the financial documentation gap.
Traditional employees receive standardised pay records as a function of their employment. Independent workers do not. This absence creates friction across lending, housing, tax compliance, and financial planning—friction that affects not only individual workers but also the institutions that serve them.
The Documentation Problem in Practice
When an employee applies for a mortgage, an apartment lease, or a car loan, the process follows a well-established path: provide recent paystubs, a W-2, and perhaps a letter from the employer. Lenders and landlords have built their verification systems around these documents because they represent a standardised, reliable proof of income.
Independent workers lack this infrastructure by default. A freelance consultant may earn six figures annually but struggle to produce the documentation required for a routine rental application. A gig worker who receives payments through multiple platforms may have income scattered across several 1099 forms, payment processor records, and bank deposits; none of which resemble the clean, consolidated format that financial institutions expect.
This is not a niche problem. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates that the number of self-employed workers has grown steadily over the past decade, and the trend shows no signs of reversing. Yet the financial documentation systems that underpin lending, housing, and compliance remain designed for a workforce model that is increasingly outdated.
Implications for Financial Institutions
For banks, mortgage lenders, and property management companies, the documentation gap presents both risk and opportunity.
On the risk side, non-standard income documentation makes it more difficult to assess creditworthiness accurately. Manual review of bank statements, tax returns, and platform payment records is time-consuming and introduces inconsistency into underwriting decisions. Some lenders respond by requiring two or more years of tax returns from self-employed applicants, a barrier that effectively excludes newer independent workers from credit markets.
On the opportunity side, institutions that develop streamlined processes for verifying non-traditional income stand to capture a rapidly growing market segment. The independent workforce represents significant purchasing power, and the lenders and landlords who serve them effectively will gain a competitive advantage.
Tax Compliance and the Self-Employed
The documentation gap also has implications for tax compliance. Traditional employees have taxes withheld automatically, and their pay records serve as a built-in audit trail. Independent workers, by contrast, are responsible for their own tax calculations, quarterly estimated payments, and year-end filings.
Without consistent pay documentation, self-employed individuals are more likely to underreport income; not necessarily through intent, but through disorganisation. When income arrives from multiple clients across different platforms with varying payment schedules, maintaining accurate records requires deliberate effort. The IRS has consistently identified self-employment income as one of the largest areas of the tax gap, the difference between taxes owed and taxes paid.
For the growing number of independent workers who need to produce their own income records, tools such as apaystub generator offer a practical solution. These platforms allow self-employed individuals to create standardised pay documentation that reflects their actual earnings, deductions, and net income—producing the kind of structured financial records that both tax authorities and financial institutions require.
The Formalisation Imperative
The broader trend points toward what might be called the “formalisation” of independent work: the process by which gig and freelance workers adopt the financial practices and documentation standards that have traditionally been the domain of formal employment.
This formalisation takes several forms:
Structured income documentation: Rather than relying on bank statements as informal proof of earnings, many self-employed professionals are nowcreating their own pay documentation using online tools that produce standardised, professional records. This shift is closing the gap between how independent workers earn and how institutions verify that income.
Entity formation: Freelancers and contractors who formalise their operations byforming a legal business entity gain access to business banking, clearer tax structures, and enhanced credibility with clients and financial institutions.
Quarterly tax discipline: Self-employed workers who establish consistent quarterly payment schedules and maintain accurate records face significantly lower compliance risk and avoid the compounding penalties that result from underpayment.
A Systemic Challenge Requiring Systemic Responses
Addressing the financial documentation gap requires action from multiple stakeholders.
Financial institutions should invest in underwriting models that accommodate non-traditional income documentation while maintaining appropriate risk controls. This includes accepting digital pay records, platform earnings statements, and tax filings as valid proof of income—rather than defaulting to employment-era verification requirements.
Policymakers should consider whether existing tax compliance frameworks adequately serve a workforce that is increasingly self-directed. Simplified filing options, standardised income reporting formats, and accessible digital tools could reduce the compliance burden on independent workers while improving the quality of data available to tax authorities.
Independent workers themselves must recognise that professional financial documentation is not optional. It is the foundation upon which access to credit, housing, and financial services depends. The tools to produce this documentation are now widely available and affordable; the barrier is awareness and adoption, not cost or complexity.
Conclusion
The gig economy’s most discussed challenges (income volatility, benefits gaps, regulatory ambiguity) are important. But the financial documentation gap may be the most consequential, because it quietly undermines the ability of independent workers to participate fully in the financial system.
As the independent workforce continues to grow, the institutions, tools, and practices that support financial documentation must evolve accordingly. The question is not whether this evolution will occur, but whether it will happen quickly enough to keep pace with the structural transformation already underway in global labour markets.
For financial leaders, the message is clear: the documentation infrastructure of the 20th-century employment model is inadequate for the 21st-century workforce. Those who recognise this early—and act on it—will be best positioned to serve the economy that is emerging.
When markets tighten, consumer behavior shifts fast. Big-ticket purchases get delayed. Travel plans get trimmed. Yet people still look for small, reliable ways to unwind at the end of a long day. That is where digital leisure often holds up, because it stays accessible, familiar, and easy to fit into changing routines. For investors, that pattern matters. It points to a segment that can keep moving even when other parts of the economy slow down.
Local Platforms Become the Moat When Capital Gets Selective
During risk-off periods, investors stop rewarding growth-at-all-costs. They start asking harder questions about product quality, regulatory fit, and operational discipline. In iGaming, the platform layer becomes the clearest signal. A well-built experience tuned to local players tends to convert more consistently, and it tends to hold users longer, because it reduces friction that shows up when budgets feel tighter.
Market dynamics make this even clearer when comparing the US, Asia, and Africa.
In the US, regulation is fragmented. Operators live inside state-by-state rules, and that pushes platforms toward strong compliance workflows and clear responsible design choices. Product teams spend serious time on identity checks, payments, and geo requirements. Investors often treat that operational maturity as a form of downside protection because it lowers surprise risk.
In many Asian markets, the story often centers on mobile-first behavior and high expectations around UX speed. Players tend to abandon slow apps quickly. That puts pressure on operators to keep performance tight, keep onboarding smooth, and keep content delivery stable even during traffic spikes.
Across Africa, the strongest performers often win by matching local payments, local devices, and local network realities. When the experience fits the day-to-day context, it becomes easier to build trust and repeat use. This is where high-quality online slots matter as a product signal, because quality shows up in stability and fair gameplay presentation, not in flashy claims.
From an investment angle, local fit is not a nice-to-have. It can function as a durability engine when discretionary spend gets more selective.
The Revenue Mechanics That Support Resilience
iGaming can show counter-cyclical characteristics because it lies in a specific spending lane. It often competes with other low-cost leisure choices rather than with major household expenses. That changes how demand behaves under pressure. People still seek entertainment, and many shift toward options that feel controllable in time and budget.
Operators also have levers that traditional leisure businesses struggle to match. They can adjust content mixes quickly, rotate promotions within policy limits, and refine onboarding flows without rebuilding physical distribution. That flexibility helps maintain engagement even when user acquisition becomes more expensive or more competitive.
Resilience also tends to improve when operators invest in service reliability. Outages, delayed withdrawals, or unclear support processes damage trust fast. In a weak economy, that trust becomes harder to rebuild. Platforms that run cleanly and communicate clearly often keep their base steadier because they remove avoidable stress points.
Volatility-to-Value, What Investors Actually Underwrite
Institutional capital rarely backs a narrative alone. It underwrites repeatable performance, governance, and visibility into risk. In iGaming, the “volatility to value” shift often happens when operators prove they can manage three core areas with discipline: regulation, payments, and product retention.
A useful way to think about it is that iGaming businesses can look like consumer tech on the surface, yet the risk profile behaves more like a regulated services operator. That hybrid profile can appeal during downturns, because it offers multiple ways to protect downside. Strong compliance reduces regulatory shock. Mature payments reduce chargeback exposure. Solid retention reduces dependence on constant acquisition spend.
Here are practical signals investors tend to pressure-test:
Jurisdiction readiness: licensing posture and audit trails that stand up to scrutiny.
Payment durability: support for local methods and clear fraud controls.
Retention quality: evidence that engagement comes from product value, not constant incentives.
Operational transparency: reporting that makes risk visible early.
Each of these signals links back to the same theme: durable revenue depends on predictable execution.
iGaming Market Growth That Fits the Downturn Thesis
Growth still matters in a counter-cyclical story because resilience alone does not justify long-term allocation. The more compelling case shows how iGaming can expand while staying operationally sound. That often comes from market formalization and product improvement rather than from reckless expansion.
As regulation matures in more regions, clearer frameworks can attract better operators and higher-quality capital. At the same time, technology improvements keep lowering friction. Better identity tools speed up onboarding. More reliable payment rails reduce failed deposits and support disputes. Product teams also get sharper at personalization that respects compliance boundaries, which can lift retention without turning the experience into a promotion treadmill.
In other words, growth can align with risk control when it comes from better infrastructure and better governance.
Building a Portfolio-Grade View of iGaming
iGaming’s counter-cyclical potential hides in the details. It shows up when an operator treats platform quality as a strategy, and when it treats compliance and operations as core product features. In that setup, downturn behavior becomes easier to explain because the business relies on repeat use supported by a stable service.
For institutional investors, the most credible opportunity often resides with companies that can prove two things at once: steady performance when consumers pull back, and a measured path to expansion as markets evolve. That is how iGaming can move from a high-volatility label toward a value-oriented role in a diversified portfolio.
Retirement brings a shift in how income is earned and managed. Regular salaries are replaced by pensions, interest income, and savings withdrawals, making cash flow planning more important than ever. For senior citizens, having predictable access to funds can reduce financial anxiety and support daily expenses.
A well-structured savings account can play a central role in managing cash flow during retirement years.
Why Cash Flow Management Matters After Retirement
After retirement, income usually becomes fixed or semi-dependent. Expenses, however, can be irregular due to medical needs, family commitments, or lifestyle choices.
Without proper planning, even sufficient savings can feel inadequate. A senior citizen-focused savings account helps organise funds so that essential expenses are covered while surplus money remains accessible when required.
This structured approach helps retirees avoid unnecessary withdrawals from long-term investments.
What Is A Senior Citizen Savings Account?
A senior citizen savings account is designed for individuals above a specified age, usually sixty years. These accounts often offer higher interest rates compared to regular savings accounts, along with features that support frequent withdrawals and easy access.
The goal is not aggressive growth but steady income support and convenience. Such accounts are particularly useful for managing pension credits, interest income, and regular household expenses.
How These Accounts Support Regular Income Needs
Senior citizen savings accounts are often used as the central hub for post-retirement income. Pension payments, interest earnings, and transfers from fixed deposits are typically routed into this account.
This setup allows retirees to track income and expenses clearly. Knowing exactly how much is available for monthly spending helps maintain discipline and avoid overspending.
A senior citizen savings account also ensures that emergency funds remain liquid and easily accessible.
Using Interest To Support Cash Flow
Interest earned on savings balances contributes to monthly cash flow, even if the amount is modest. Over time, this interest helps offset routine expenses.
Using a savings account interest calculator allows retirees to estimate how much interest they can expect based on their average balance. This helps in planning monthly withdrawals without eroding the principal too quickly.
Realistic projections reduce uncertainty and support better financial decision making.
Features That Make A Difference For Seniors
Not all savings accounts are equally suitable for retirees. Certain features are particularly helpful during post-retirement years.
Before choosing an account, senior citizens should consider the following.
Higher Interest Rates Better rates help improve income from idle balances.
Easy Withdrawal Facilities Frequent access without penalties supports medical and household needs.
Digital And Branch Access Flexibility to bank online or in person based on comfort.
Clear Statements And Alerts Easy tracking of balances and transactions reduces confusion.
These features collectively support smoother cash flow management.
Planning Withdrawals Without Stress
One of the biggest challenges after retirement is deciding how much to withdraw and when. A savings account simplifies this by acting as a buffer between long-term investments and daily expenses.
By transferring a planned amount into the savings account regularly, retirees can control spending without constantly reviewing investment portfolios. A savings account interest calculator can assist in adjusting withdrawal amounts based on interest earnings.
This separation helps preserve long-term savings while ensuring liquidity.
Avoiding Common Mistakes
A common mistake is keeping too much money in low access instruments, which creates stress during emergencies. Another issue is ignoring interest potential altogether and focusing only on fixed deposits.
Balancing funds between savings accounts and long-term investments creates flexibility without compromising stability.
Conclusion
Senior citizen savings accounts play an important role in managing post-retirement cash flow by offering easy access, predictable interest, and better financial visibility. They help retirees organise income, handle expenses calmly, and avoid unnecessary financial stress. By using these accounts thoughtfully and planning withdrawals carefully, senior citizens can maintain control over their finances throughout retirement.
Oil markets no longer respond to one signal at a time, making volatility harder to interpret and long-term pricing far less predictable.
Energy markets are being shaped by overlapping pressures that rarely move in the same direction. Geopolitical tensions, shifting trade routes, uncertain demand, and uneven progress in energy transition technologies are all influencing prices at once, often making traditional market signals harder to trust. In this interview, Igor Isaev explains why volatility today often reflects deeper structural shifts rather than isolated events. Drawing on more than two decades of work in commodity and financial market analysis, he discusses how energy security, oil pricing, and global supply adjustments are changing the way leaders in both finance and industry interpret risk.
You have spent more than two decades studying commodity and financial markets. What first drew you to understanding how markets behave when conditions become unpredictable?
In calmer periods, markets may look rational, guided by supply-demand balances and macro models. But once conditions become unstable, something more important happens.
The “unpredictable” now includes structural transitions. We still see discussion of expanding oil exploration into more complex regions, such as the Arctic. But in reality, the economics there are extremely challenging. The cost of exploration and production is so high that the alternative technologies path doesn’t look prohibitive.
The economics there are extremely challenging. The cost of exploration and production is so high that the alternative technologies path doesn’t look prohibitive.
I see attempts to accelerate the development of innovative sources. The States have been working to integrate fusion energy into the grid by 2030, though that timeline faces setbacks. That alone shows how difficult it is to predict which technological path will actually materialize and when.
The EU is targeting a 70% share of sustainable aviation fuel by 2050, but current production capacity is nowhere near that level. This means aviation will rely on conventional jet fuel for longer than expected, supporting oil demand even as the narrative points toward decarbonization.
Energy markets today are shaped by geopolitics, supply concerns, and changing demand patterns at the same time. What has become most difficult about reading market signals in this environment?
The most challenging part is sorting out short-term “noise” from long-term structural displacements. In the past, it was possible to analyze main input factors — conflicts, demand, and supply — each one separately. Today, they often send conflicting signals.
For example, diplomatic tensions and wars can cause a sharp spike in oil prices, while at the same time, the slowdown in the global economy is weighing on long-term demand.
The current oil price surge is not isolated. It feeds into transportation costs, fertilizers, and eventually food prices. So even if institutions like the World Bank expect some stabilization, there is a buildup of risks beneath the surface that is harder to quantify.
Energy security has returned to the center of economic debate. From the data you follow, what are the clearest signs that countries are changing how they think about energy risk?
There are three clear indicators:
Diversification of suppliers, not just energy sources, is a must. We see this in Europe, which is actively building LNG terminals to receive gas from the U.S. to reduce its dependence on Russia.
Temporary revival of air-polluting energy sources, such as coal and nuclear power, which seemed gone, is again being viewed as a tool of energy independence. Decisions to revive nuclear power plants in Japan and Germany, or to raise coal consumption in Asia, are clear reassessment signals.
Accumulating strategic reserves is our ultimate lifeline. Countries are actively stockpiling not only oil, but also diesel fuel and natural gas.
Oil prices often react quickly to headlines, but not every market move reflects a lasting shift. How do you tell when volatility points to something deeper?
I look at three main indicators:
The forward curve. If only the nearest contract reacts to the news while the more distant ones remain stable, it is most likely a panic. But if the entire curve shifts upward and enters backwardation, this signals a physical shortage, and traders’ readiness to pay premia for immediate delivery.
If a sharp price movement is accompanied by a huge increase in trading volume and open interest, it means that real producers and consumers are hedging their risks.
Spreads between oil grades. The reaction of spreads (for example, between Brent and WTI) shows exactly where the problem lies. If only Brent were rising, this could be a local issue in the North Sea. If, however, all key spreads are moving in sync, this indicates a disruption of the supply-demand balance.
Trading volumes and open interest. A spike in volatility on low volumes is often speculative. But if a sharp price movement is accompanied by a huge increase in trading volume and open interest, it means that real producers and consumers are hedging their risks.
Many firms now have access to large volumes of market data. In practice, what separates useful analysis from simply having more information?
What makes today’s energy markets particularly difficult is that many reference points no longer work. In past cycles, the relationship between prices, economic growth, and interest rates was stable. Now, traditional macro signals aren’t enough to explain everything.
Current political events are setting the price floor. Simultaneously, demand signals become less reliable, and inventory data often tells an incomplete story. Our models show that even when supply-demand balances look normal, prices can still move sharply because the market is reacting to perceived risk.
Useful analysis is the ability to synthesize, not just summarize. Instead of simply stating, “Inventories rose, and prices fell,” useful analysis explains why this happened. Perhaps inventories rose due to weak gasoline demand, which is a leading indicator of a recession.
What is one assumption about oil markets that people still repeat, even though it no longer reflects reality?
The most common misconception is the statement that “OPEC controls oil prices.” OPEC+ expansion has complicated decisions, while U.S. shale reacts to prices much faster, per se.
When uncertainty remains high for an extended period, what do you think leaders in energy and finance need to understand now that may become even more important in the years ahead?
The restructuring of global oil shipping routes and shifts in the types of oil are game changers. While in the past, certain petrochemicals were exclusively purchased by certain countries, now, due to globalization, they are purchased by others too. This leads to bottlenecks and delays. And this has affected everyone’s revenue and margins. But so far it looks as nothing more serious than just a delay. How long will this chaotic market transformation last? I think it won’t be more than five years. This applies to both automotive and aviation fuels. In other words, it’s simply a delay caused by this global restructuring of the energy market.
The past few years have shown that supply chains can be weaponized (sanctions, export controls, etc.). So, leaders must admit that this has become the new normal. Proactive strategies become more important for diversification and resilience. Reactive problem-solving becomes inefficient.
The traditional energy trilemma (meaning security, affordability, sustainability) is now more acute than ever. Current events directly impact security and costs. This makes sustainability goals less important. Leaders should realize how these forces interact and create trade-offs.
Finally, they must recognize that the transition itself is a source of volatility. New technologies, new supply chains for critical minerals, and emerging regulatory frameworks will all contribute to this.
Igor Isaev, Head of Analytics Center,Mind Money. He is a financial markets analytics expert with more than 20 years; experience in the stock and commodity market analytics and trading strategies development. With a PhD in Technical Sciences, Isaev’s expertise extends to stock exchange analytics based on mathematical models and big data.
Blue Owl Capital collected more industry awards in 2025 than any other real assets manager, receiving three honors from the Private Equity Real Estate (PERE) Awards and four from the Infrastructure Investor Awards.
The firm won three PERE honors: Global Net Lease Investor of the Year, Global Data Center Investor of the Year, and Global Retail Real Estate Investor of the Year. It won four Infrastructure Investor honors: Global Digital Infrastructure Investor of the Year, Global Innovator of the Year, North America Digital Infrastructure Investor of the Year, and North America Deal of the Year for the Hyperion campus financing.
The awards, announced on March 4, reflect a year in which Blue Owl’s Real Assets platform executed several significant transactions, including the acquisition of IPI Partners, a majority investment in Dallas-based Gigabit Fiber. Blue Owl Real Assets also executed a first-of-its-kind transaction, serving as a trusted partner to Meta on its $27 billion Hyperion data center campus in Louisiana.
“We are truly honored to be recognized by both PERE and Infrastructure Investor spanning seven total awards, all of which reinforce the strength of our integrated real assets platform, the dedication of our team and the continued trust of our partners,” said Marc Zahr, Co-President and Global Head of Real Assets at Blue Owl, in a statement. “We remain focused on our mission to deliver the highest current cash flow and total return while taking the least amount of risk.”
2025 Transactions That Anchored the Recognition
The awards came at the end of a year defined by several prominent transactions that expanded Blue Owl’s position in digital infrastructure.
The Hyperion data center campus in Louisiana, a $27 billion project Blue Owl helped finance and owns, was one of the largest single data center transactions disclosed in recent years. Blue Owl’s approach to data center investing focuses on providing capital for the physical structure rather than the technology inside it, working with hyperscale tenants that pre-lease the assets on a long-term basis. That structure keeps Blue Owl’s exposure tied to real estate fundamentals — long-term leases, creditworthy tenants — rather than to the capital expenditure cycles of the companies occupying these mission critical buildings.
The acquisition of IPI Partners, completed in January 2025, added dedicated digital infrastructure capabilities to Blue Owl’s Real Assets platform. IPI was founded in 2016 as a joint venture between Iconiq and Iron Point, and it had built a track record in data center equity investments before the acquisition. Blue Owl also completed a majority investment in Gigabit Fiber, a Dallas-based provider, during the year.
Real Assets Platform Growth
The award activity coincided with a period of significant expansion for the Real Assets platform. Total Real Assets assets under management reached $80.6 billion as of December 31, 2025, up 63% from $49.4 billion a year earlier, the fastest-growing segment at Blue Owl by percentage during the year, according to Blue Owl’s fourth quarter 2025 investor presentation. The platform owns more than 6,025 equity assets and maintains relationships with more than 860 tenants and partners.
Blue Owl’s Real Assets platform raised $17 billion in equity during 2025, up from $4.9 billion in 2024. A significant portion of that capital came through wealth-dedicated products. Blue Owl Real Estate ranked as the top net fundraiser among non-traded real estate investment trusts in 2025, with inflows accelerating 55% year over year. During the fourth quarter, the firm launched a wealth-dedicated digital infrastructure REIT, raising $1.7 billion in its first close.
While private real estate fundraising recovered broadly in 2025, reaching $222 billion industry-wide and increasing 29% from 2024 levels, Blue Owl’s inflows outpaced that broader recovery by a wide margin.
The firm’s net lease strategy also continued to attract investor attention outside the data center sector. Zahr, writing for PERE in a published commentary, described investors gravitating toward scale, downside protection, and long-term leases as volatility in data center markets increased during 2025.
Blue Owl’s net lease investment trust, ORENT, continued to accelerate inflows through the fourth quarter, while the firm also raised capital through its seventh vintage drawdown product.
The firm manages its real estate exposure primarily through triple net lease structures, in which tenants cover property taxes, insurance, and maintenance costs in addition to base rent. Blue Owl has cited that structure as a source of downside protection for investors, particularly as questions about data center valuations intensified during 2025.
How the Awards Are Determined
PERE and Infrastructure Investor are publications of PEI Group, which covers private markets investing globally. Both programs carry meaningful standing among institutional real assets allocators.
The PERE Awards are an editorially driven process, with editors reviewing submissions and weighing criteria including capital raised and deployed in the last twelve months, market impact, and performance metrics where applicable. The annual awards honor investors, managers, advisors, and industry professionals whose achievements have shaped the private real estate market during the prior year.
The Infrastructure Investor Awards follow a similar editorial approach, though their criteria are structured differently across categories. For Investor of the Year designations, the editorial board prioritizes fund closes, completed and announced deals, and other significant milestones from the judging period. Deal of the Year categories focus on transactions of particular size and industry impact, while the Innovator of the Year designation targets milestones that have advanced the asset class in a meaningful way.
In the vacuum left by the U.S. President’s failure to provide a coherent rationale behind America and Israel’s military assault on Iran, many are concerned about the geopolitical and economic consequences for the Middle East and, indeed, the whole world, Moreover, what further military plans might an emboldened Trump contemplate?
The idea in Washington and Tel Aviv that bombing Iran will somehow trigger a popular uprising is not strategy—it’s wishful thinking. Bombs can degrade infrastructure. They can weaken capabilities, but they do not manufacture organized political alternatives.
– Ali Vaez, Iran Senior Advisor at the International Crisis Group
Decisions guided by whims are naive prospects of success. When a commander-in-chief of the strongest military decides to go to war based on whims, Earth’s orbit is perturbed. Its people suffer. Playing with the whims of should-I-or-should-I-not in the question of war with Iran is insane. Only a psychopath would do that. First, decisions on that order should have a clear reason for citizens.
With no indication of a benefit to any side, the best than can happen now, aside from many innocent people being killed, is a ceasefire with minuscule gains, if any.
What is Donald Trump’s reason for this incomprehensible war? Is it about regime change, support for protesters, ending weapons-grade nuclear material, oil, bribe-rentals of the U.S. military from Middle East countries, or distractions from the Epstein files? My understanding of war is complex, but I confess that this new war of the year is disturbing, problematic, and risky, but could have succeeded with unhasty, intelligent planning. Yet with no indication of a benefit to any side, the best that can happen now, aside from many innocent people being killed, is a ceasefire with minuscule gains, if any. Surely, the U.S. Pentagon has calculated the odds of victory, the cost of casualties, and infrastructure destruction. Morals of killing and wounding are at issue, but in war games, they are not considered to be a bother. In every war, there are expectations and uncontrolled mistakes. Without an intelligent plan for ending a war, planners should clearly advise their leaders whether it is a strong benefit to start a war.
The nuclear issue
Is it about nuclear weapons? If so, why not negotiate with more patience?
Who is telling the truth in those quotes? It is difficult to know why this war started with such a brief diplomatic attempt. It could have been for many reasons that are not grounds for war. Was it started from the whims of glory at taking down the Ayatollah, Ali Khamenei, from plots to acquire beach fronts in Sang-e Siyah for Trump hotels, or a hopeful distraction from the Epstein files? Distractions are part of the art of Trump deals. His prospects might succeed, but mostly at the expense of the American, Iranian, and Middle Eastern people.
The rationale of war
My readers generally know that I write about understanding war, not about the specific cases of wars. My angle is to understand the consequences of wars in general terms, but sometimes, rarely, I use specific examples of war as models of what could go right or wrong. In this case, I have no choice but to express my opinion. The news of this war in the Middle East has been front and center every day and every hour since February 28, 2026. It would be superfluous for me to bring in news that has already been posted so repeatedly that we know enough to judge the implications of this war. However, I raise a few issues that have not been meaningfully addressed, and pose this question to my readers: In news about wars, do we have an impression of how wars work, regarding an imagined battlefield? We see photos of bombings and destruction, plumes of smoke rising in the distance, rubble in the streets, explosions through satellite tracking and imagery, damage to buildings, and grieving families. Tehran is a metropolis of over 9 million inhabitants living in 22 municipal districts covering well over 2,000 streets, squares, and avenues. It is an immense and beautiful city that is impossible to destroy without a WWII-type fire-bombing, though conventional bombing can create an infrastructure mess that is not justified by any truthful reasoning.
North of Tehran skyline view and a tree-lined avenue Credit: Ninara from Helsinki Finland Source: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:North_of_Tehran_Skyline_view.jpg
This war’s objective
Think about the war this way: The U.S. surely knows that Iran is a country with a population of 92 million with an elite military force of almost 190,000 active Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) members, besides a regular conventional force of approximately 400,000 active-duty personnel. In addition, there is the Quds Force, a non-state proxy group that commands proxy militias, including Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Houthis, and Shia, working in Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan.
Is the U.S. equipped to handle that country, with hundreds of thousands of guns and new, angry, multiple leaderships scattered throughout the country? What could be the objective for settlement, and with whom? Is there a U.S. misunderstanding of Iran’s forces that are almost everywhere in the Middle East? On February 28th, soon after the U.S. began its war with Iran, Trump posted an 8-minute video on Truth Social calling for the IRGC members, the armed forces, and police to disarm. “Lay down your weapons,” he said, “and have complete immunity, or in the alternative face certain death.” [1]
The power of comprehension?
Has he misunderstood Iran? Now, Trump is saying that there would be no deal other than “unconditional surrender.” Seriously?! Iran is not Venezuela. A comment like that shows that Trump does not understand the country. Some IRGC members and a few conventional forces might agree to lay down their weapons and join the resistance, but hardly enough to make a difference. Immediately after that message, Iran retaliated with drone and missile attacks on Israel and multiple Arab states that host U.S. assets in the region.
Did Trump not see the likely possibility that Iran might launch hundreds of ballistic missiles and drones across the Gulf? Did he not see the possible consequences of a widened scope of civilian casualties, airport closings, threatening oil transports, and container shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, creating what the International Energy Agency called “the biggest disruption to the oil market in history”? Did he consider the likely repercussions that could come from the cost of shipping insurance, the disruption of crucial fertilizer shipments that keep farms all over the world in operation, and raw materials to make parts for cars? Did he not know that killing a religious leader of a country would only cause an escalated response in ways we cannot yet know? Did he consider how the price of gas would inflate? Did he know that Russia would help Iran hit the CIA facility in the Saudi Capital, and destabilize U.S. Patriot PAC-3 anti-ballistic missile batteries protecting a U.S. Navy base in Bahrain? Did he know that Russia would provide Iran with intelligence to target U.S. forces throughout the Middle East? Did he not see that the U.S. economy might face a recession due to soaring oil prices?
Trump must understand that he cannot control the economic fallout from this war, because once supply changes hit, it takes months to fix them, if they can be fixed.
Timeline objectives according to Trump
Feb 28. “for these reasons, the United States military has undertaken a massive and ongoing operation to prevent this very wicked, radical dictatorship from threatening America and our core national security interests.”
March 1. “an Iranian regime armed with long-range missiles and nuclear weapons would be a dire threat to every American. We cannot allow a nation that raises terrorist armies to possess such weapons, that would allow them to extort the world to their evil will.”
March 2. “An Iranian regime armed with long-range missiles and nuclear weapons would be an intolerable threat to the Middle East, but also to the American people. Our country itself would be under threat, and it was very nearly under threat.”
March 3. “They were going to attack. If we didn’t do it, they were going to attack first … So, if anything, I might have forced Israel’s hand, but Israel was ready, and we were ready. The bottom line is this: The president determined we were not going to get hit first. It’s that simple, guys.”
March 6. “The assistance, which has not been previously reported, signals that the rapidly expanding conflict now features one of the America’s chief nuclear-armed competitors with exquisite intelligence capabilities.” [2]
March 6. “There will be no deal with Iran except UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER! After that, and the selection of a GREAT & ACCEPTABLE Leader(s), we, and many of our wonderful and very brave allies and partners, will work tirelessly to bring Iran back from the brink of destruction, making it economically bigger, better, and stronger than ever before.”
March 9. In a phone interview with White House correspondent Weijia Jiang, Trump said, “I think the war is very complete, pretty much. … not ruling out troops or a draft.”
March 10. The military objectives are “pretty well complete.”
March 11. Asked by a White House reporter to clarify, he answered, “No, no, no. It’s not pretty much over. Where did you hear that? Who told you that fake news?”
Trump’s confusing statements revolve around the possibility of threat to America. However, on March 17th, we learned from Joe Kent, the Director of the National Counterintelligence Center, through his resignation letter to the President, “After much reflection, I have decided to resign from my position as Director of the National Counterterrorism Center, effective today. I cannot in good conscience support the ongoing war in Iran. Iran posed not an imminent threat to our nation.” [3] In Trump’s daily intelligence briefing, he must have learned that there was no imminent threat to the U.S. We do not know what he knows but every day we see him contradict himself in his lies.
Acting on impulse
His problem is that he thinks by considering the next step without bothering to bring in the consequences from that first step to the next move and its consequences. Surely, the President’s Daily Brief (PDB) led by the CIA and the Director of National Intelligence, which gives Trump classified top-secret reports, gives him assessments on the potential of the war and tells him that the military operations will not unseat the regime. He doesn’t take PDB advice seriously because he doggedly believes that his whims are his foretokens, so he picks a next-step countermove without considering the deeper domino consequences. [4] Surely, the PDB has given him difficult options with enough advice for carrying out an operation that understands Iran’s reactions. But each of his moves comes from impulses driven by the problem of his impostor syndrome. Somewhere deep down in his ego is a query of whether he is fit to be a president. So, he chose an operation that had not been thought out. “It’s going to work very easily,” he said, “It’s going to work like in Venezuela.” Ha! And so, he is now grappling with a message that could shine some light on the rationale and objectives. What will it be tomorrow for strategic allusions? What will happen when the U.S. leaves the Middle East? With over 14 countries in that area fighting each other, they will all be exposed to attacks that could either come from governments or proxy militias.
What happened in the first five weeks of the Iraq war, when President George W. Bush stood on the USS Abraham Lincoln declaring “Mission accomplished.” That war lasted almost nine years. On March 9, in an interview with CBS News, Trump, who never admits his mistakes, said, “I think it’s very complete pretty much … not ruling out troops or a draft.” Watch: he will declare victory. But accomplishment of what? Of toppling a regime, destroying enriched uranium, supporting protests, protection of U.S. national security, UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER? Which is it? None will be accomplished. His impostor syndrome is weighing his declining economic future, and a likely political rupture of his confused MAGA base.
I learned early on that it is never a good idea for a nation to strip an enemy so naked of its dignity that it feels that it has nothing left to lose. It usually comes back to haunt you.
— Thomas L. Friedman
So, what was all this war for?
We must question: What was all this for? Without a clear objective, public support, what exactly has been driving this war? The consequences are devastating. Trump can always declare victory, but of what? With no regime change, no change in nuclear commitment, no help for the protesters, and no ex-U.S. allies extending help, WAIT AND SEE, he will be gaspingly denying the truth behind what he wished to accomplish, why this war is happening, and looking for ways to get out of his wreckage.
By trumpeting unachievable objectives—unconditional surrender, regime change—as his war aims, Trump has given his enemies the opportunity to claim survival as victory. He’s left himself with no evident end point to what he recently called a ‘short-term excursion.
Two people are behind this war—Trump and Netanyahu. When someone creates an event, for example, starts a war, and cannot give a rational reason, one might suspect the intention is hidden somewhere under a pile of hidden variables that foretell risky consequences. In other words, secrets that should not be revealed because of risky consequences or foolish reasons. Secrets, though, most always have clues.
The world as real estate
When someone acquires power, character changes, partly because power requires significance. In the cases of those who have inferior cognitive abilities, impostor syndrome is a magnet reaching for power in ways that diminish smart reasoning. Those who hang on don’t have the cognitive capacities that require views beyond two, three, or four moves ahead. Those are the leaders to worry about. Almost two years ago, just when he was reelected to be president, I wrote a piece portending that Trump would end up doing something foolish enough to start a war that he cannot win. My prophecy is now evident.
We see Trump’s moves are without much depth of war knowledge; he lacks an alertness of second, third and fourth moves that he cannot, or does not want to see.
Strait of Hormuz, a 21-mile eye of the needle. 20% of the world’s oil crosses the Strait. Didn’t he think about that before attacking Iran?
As I wrote in my previous article, the current commander-in-chief of the U.S. military works by his own wishful whims that do not match the evidential facts coming from the Office of National Intelligence. His intellect suits forceful real-estate deal making. In that kind of brutal cleverness, his deals have risks that could wobble a profit margin graph, though a country the size of the United States with a population of 343 million banking on government values, safety, and a balanced economy for all, risks more than a wobbling deal that could bankrupt the entire country and send humans into battles that they may or may not contain.
Missile launch Image from CENTCOM
The consequences of not understanding
In any conflict, there must be planning for the worst. When 20 percent of the world’s fossil fuel energy flows through the Strait of Hormuz, threats of blowing up oil tankers should not be a surprise. Shipping companies are unwilling to take the risks of moving ships through the Strait, especially after they know that the Persian Gulf is filled with mines. Also, energy companies are likely to turn off refining operations because storage of refined oil is limited.
We can see the domino effect of geopolitics that seems to be missed by the Trump administration, though the PDBs must have given Trump a briefing about all of this before he decided to go to war with an extremely belligerent country. Trump may have known the possibilities of these upsets, thinking that if the war were to end quickly, there would not be much of a disruption of oil production and shipment. Even if the war were to end today, it would still take weeks or months to restart production and replenish the deliveries to other countries far from the Gulf. In either case—whether the war ends quickly or not—a global economic impact will be the result of poor planning by the commander-in-chief who makes up his mind on matters that miss clear negotiation opportunities and face the risks of so many unknown conflict possibilities that bring geopolitical chaos, not just to the Middle East but far beyond. By not thinking this through, war starts with intentions of a quick end but continues far beyond what was ever expected.
We have seen this so many times before, and yet we always think we know better. Remember that very long war between Iraq and Iran that started with expectations of a quick surrender, yet ended almost eight years later. Did the wars in Vietnam and Afghanistan teach us to be aware of the false startup ambitions? Wars under diplomatic hopelessness, like, especially, this one, start with misguided impatience that locks up compromises that could benefit both sides, reduce the cost in economies and lives, and bring peace to citizens who care far more about their day-to-day struggles than who wins the trophies of military history. No side fully wins in any war, except those arms dealers who always want wars to continue.
The real objective
With no clear motives – regime change, support for protesters, ending weapons-grade nuclear material, oil, or bribe-rentals of the U.S. military from Middle East countries – and no apparent possible outcome, even after the killing of supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei along with approximately 48 of Iran’s senior leaders and officials, the gambit is just wishful thinking, for nobody knows how well this war will go. So why? If the object is a negotiated regime change, why create more difficulty by targeting all those officials for killing? That questions the reason for regime change, for who, in a high government position, will be left to deal with it in the end?
With no clear motives and no apparent possible outcome, the gambit is just wishful thinking, for nobody knows how well this war will go.
Could this war’s initiating objective be the nuclear threat? On March 1st, Trump claimed that Iran was two weeks away from having a nuclear bomb. It was just one of several confounding justifications for starting the war. That one is simply not true. The House Intelligence Committee said there is no evidence to back up that claim. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) knows that Iran has 60 percent enriched uranium, which it could use to make a bomb. It is possible that Iran could have enough material for a bomb, but that is just the first step, not one that makes a bomb. According to Joseph Cirincione, Vice Chair of The Center for International Policy Board, in an interview with Alex Witt of MS NOW, said, “You have to turn that enriched uranium, 90 percent enriched uranium into a metal; you have to shape it into the components of the bomb; you have to assemble the bomb; you have to have a bomb design. … And then you have to test that weapon.” If they succeed with all that, they might have a crude bomb. But then there is the phase of putting that bomb on a warhead.
The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) employs thousands of nonpolitical analysts who scour hints of threats to American national security under its mission to analyze intelligence for U.S. leaders and for the PDB. In a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing on March 19th, Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence, in her opening statement, said that Iran’s nuclear enrichment program was “obliterated” with no efforts since then to try to rebuild its enrichment capacity. During that hearing Senator Jon Ossoff asked about an “imminent nuclear threat posed by the Iranian regime.” She answered, with too much inconsistency in trying to cover for the president, “It is not a responsibility of the intelligence community to determine what is or is not an imminent threat.”[6]
Representative Joaquin Castro questioning Gabbard in a March 2026 House Intelligence Committee hearing [7]
Joaquin Castro: What does their Intelligence Committee assess Israel’s goals in this war, in this war to be? And are those qoals aligned with the goals of the United States?
Tulsi Gabbard: In thinking carefully about what can be said in this open setting versus a closed setting…
Castro: Are the goals aligned
Gabbard: The objectives that have been laid out by the President are different from the objectives that have been laid out by Israeli government.
Castro: And how do they differ?
Gabbard: We can see through the operations that the Israeli government has been focused on, uh, destabilizing the Iranian leadership and taking out several members, obviously beginning with the Ayatollah, the supreme leader and they continue to focus on that effort.
Castro: How does that differ from our goals?
Gabbard: The President has stated that his objectives are to, uh, destroy Iran’s ballistic missile launching capabilities, then ballistic missile production capacity, and then Navy, their IRGC Navy.
War: politics by other means?
Trump missed a great opportunity by walking away from diplomatic negotiations. Diplomacy is never easy; it requires an immense amount of time along with a great number of concessions. In the case of ending negotiations before the war began, his team was locked in his usual negotiation tactics, schemes that might work to win real estate deals that are far simpler than the prevention of war. Negotiations in preventing war must involve understanding the interconnectedness of economics and geopolitics, extending to countries beyond the hostilities. With that understanding, negotiations have a purpose – not winning a war, but rather the settlement that brings peace and prosperity to both sides. Without that consideration, negotiations are ineffective. Diplomacy can be tough, but war is not about toughness. It is about the strength and skills of negotiators.
So, there we have it: the president of the U.S. has no understanding of the point of military negotiations, and too few advisors to forward legitimate reasons. He is frightened, so he will say, “Okay, we have killed the Ayatollah’s father, family, significant intelligence officials, and commanders of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. So, let’s leave with the victory of accomplished goals.” But the Iranians are not going to desist from carrying out their attacks, partly because the U.S. did kill Ali Khamenei. How will he claim victory after Iran continues to attack, which they will?
A military campaign with no coherent endgame
The nuclear bomb program was one reason before Trump changed his reason to Iran close to having missiles that could reach the U.S., then changed it again to say Iran was “going to attack first,” against the advice from his PDBs. None of those reasons is close to being true. Besides, he is making things up as he goes. Reasons must link to serious objectives. If we do not know the reason for this war, we also do not know the clear objectives. The president started this war, and so he must have a clear reason and a clear objective; however, we keep getting different stories about objectives. For example, tweaks of messaging can change opinions; is the objective regime change or regime exhaustion, protecting protesters, or using them? Could this entangled mystery web of reasoning and purpose be a deliberate scheme to keep the story flexible enough to spin a declaration of victory after the war ends? He will come up with a “mission accomplished” slogan in a cunning way of presenting some unseen objective. On the one hand, it gives him a way to tell the public that the U.S. succeeded, and on the other, by waiting to explain reasons and objectives until after the war. He could put the administration in a tough position where expectations will be unmet by the final explanation, raising doubts. However, in a military reality, this war is going to go on for a long, long time.
Ambiguity in policy descriptions always raises doubts. So, those kinds of public message tactics risk unanticipated problems that can clash with the true objectives. Remember Secretary of State Colin Powell’s speech to the UN Security Council about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. It was a lie that continues to disturb most Americans. [8]When the public is told lies, it generates the natural tendency for people to construct a nebulous imagination, segueing into assumptions that bounce through social networks eager for new conspiracy theories. Remember when President George W. Bush declared, “Mission accomplished” in a televised speech aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier, six weeks after the start of the U.S.–Iraq war that lasted nearly nine years? That same aircraft carrier is back again, now conducting strikes and operations in the Middle East. Wait and watch for another “Mission accomplished” speech likely to be within the next six weeks. It is the game that is played with the public.
We have never known a war that started without a known reason
It is difficult to understand how a war like this happens, but there are a few clues that could give some indication of what exactly precipitated it. We will never know how much influence Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had before the war started. Could it be that he was the one, another strong man of unleashed power on Trump’s admiration list, who brought us into that war? Trump craves recognition in the club of strongmen. But there is another reason, one more forceful.
If you are looking for a more solid reason, look no further than the money and who benefits; read my article “Why Are There So Many Wars, Especially Now? An Obscure Brilliance of Arms Dealing Keeps Wars Coming” [9] Where there are wars, there are arms providers. When there are arms providers, there will be wars. And with more wars, there will be more dealers earning excessive profits eager to heat arms markets to inflate prices and keep those wars going. That is the obscure brilliance of arms dealing. To pick one example, from the time of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine till now, weapon suppliers to that war have quadrupled their prices.[10]
Operation Epic Fury, the code name for the military campaign, is estimated to cost approximately $891.4 million each day. So, we must wonder who is paying whom. If that war continues for another three months, the bill will be over $1.2 trillion. According to the U.S. Office of Management and Budget, the estimate adds 10 percent to include the costs “for higher aircraft sortie rates, more ship steaming hours, heightened alert levels, extended deployments, and additional personnel compensation, such as family separation allowances and hazard pay.” [11] And now, just one month into the war, the Pentagon is asking for $200 billion to keep funding the war, close to one quarter of the Pentagon’s annual budget, money that could reverse Trump’s cuts in Medicaid’s health insurance and food stamp programs that tens of millions of Americans rely on. So, I ask again: Where is all that money going to?
Arms dealers, of course! If we follow the money, it comes from the U.S. Treasury, which pays suppliers for replenished supplies. Those are mostly large companies that manufacture bombs, planes, ammunition, and enormous amounts of fuel. Much of that money goes indirectly to stock market holders.
US Military Bases in the Middle East Source: https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#sent/QgrcJHsTgFkQwkmsppzjPQXVqdCsLtQQwtV?projector=1&messagePartId=0.1
The price of victory
Now, let’s take a deep breath to ask: What could happen if this war ends in a Trump victory? I’m not alone in this quandary over victory; many foreign affairs analysts have said this before me. With a real victory, say, unconditional surrender, the danger to the entire world will worsen. Iran, a terrorist-supported country, could turn to a peace-loving existence. That could happen. The bravado would spin new whims and instincts to reinforce his belief that his success is inevitable, with no expense to himself. Imagine how wildly Trump will behave, then. His partial success with Venezuela pumped blood to his head, thirsting for another war. He found another. What, then, will happen if Iran does surrender unconditionally? We needn’t speculate. [12]Watch out, Cuba, Colombia, Greenland, even Canada. Mexico? It would take a psychopath to have such a whim.
Truth: the first casualty of war?
I am grateful to The World Financial Review (TWFR) for accepting the articles in my column. It brings a trust of truth as an independent magazine immune from the threats of the current Trump regime attempting to revoke American media licenses over Iran War coverage. Brendan Carr, Chairman of the U.S. Federal Communications Commission, accused broadcasters of “running hoaxes and news distortions” with warnings to “correct course before their license renewals come up.” [13]Though I worry about how Mr. Carr’s threats will play out, I will not be timid about telling what I believe to be true, free speech, thanks to TWFR.
Here we are in a mess of geopolitical dynamics, without a coalition of allies willing to open the Strait of Hormuz. With half the world struggling with the price of oil, and perhaps the price of everything, we have no choice but to wait this dooming war out. I know that not everyone would agree with me on the issues of this war. I can also realize how few who study war can support this war. However, we must recognize that venturing into a war—any war—is a risk that any country must carefully assess and not just rely on the power of weapons.
Let’s not worry too much; this will end, and so will he, though we don’t know when.
Joseph Mazuris an Emeritus Professor of Mathematics at Emerson College’s Marlboro Institute for Liberal Arts & Interdisciplinary Studies. He is a recipient of fellowships from the Guggenheim, Bogliasco, and Rockefeller Foundations, and the author of eight acclaimed popular nonfiction books. His latest book is The Clock Mirage: Our Myth of Measured Time (Yale).
The integration of Generative AI (Gen AI) into business operations presents immense opportunities for leaders, along with serious challenges and risks. While the potential benefits are transformative, navigating the complexities of Gen AI projects requires a nuanced approach that balances strategic oversight with fostering a culture of innovation. A key element of this approach is the implementation of regular, strategically designed check-ins. While some might feel worried that these check-ins represent micromanagement, they are anything but; rather, they serve as crucial touchpoints for monitoring progress, evaluating the need for additional resources, providing constructive feedback, fostering collaboration, and ensuring alignment with overarching business objectives. In other words, such check-ins serve as a crucial managerial “trust, but verify” tool, deployed by the more skilled managers to keep projects and teams aligned, on track, and appropriately resourced.
Structuring Effective Progress Reviews to Leverage Gen AI Disruption
Without psychological safety, teams may be hesitant to share critical information, leading to delays, inefficiencies, and even project failure.
Effective Gen AI project management requires a shift in mindset. Traditional project management methodologies, focused on rigid timelines and pre-defined outcomes, often fall short when applied to the iterative and experimental nature of Gen AI development. Instead, a more agile and adaptive approach is needed, one that embraces experimentation, learning from failures, and continuous refinement. Regular check-ins provide the framework for this adaptive approach.
The format of these reviews should be tailored to the specific project’s complexity and scale. Options include:
Regular Meetings: Bi-weekly or monthly meetings provide a consistent cadence for updates and discussions
Milestone Reviews: Check-ins tied to specific project phases (e.g., model training completion, prototype development) offer targeted evaluation points
Informal Status Updates: Brief, ad-hoc updates can address immediate concerns or share quick wins
Regardless of the format, the focus should be on creating a collaborative space for teams to,
Present findings and progress
Discuss challenges and roadblocks
Seek guidance and feedback
Ask for additional resources
Explore potential adjustments to the project direction
A crucial element often overlooked is the creation of psychological safety within these check-ins. Psychological safety, as defined by Amy Edmondson, refers to is “a shared belief held by members of a team that the team is safe for interpersonal risk taking.” In the context of Gen AI projects, this means creating an environment where team members feel comfortable admitting mistakes or setbacks, asking for help or clarification, and challenging assumptions or proposing alternative approaches
Without psychological safety, teams may be hesitant to share critical information, leading to delays, inefficiencies, and even project failure. Leaders can foster psychological safety by encouraging open communication and active listening, responding constructively to mistakes and setbacks, and creating a culture of respect and inclusivity.
As Gen AI becomes more integrated into various business functions, the scope of these check-ins may need to expand to include representatives from different departments. This cross-functional collaboration can facilitate knowledge sharing and prevent siloed thinking, identify opportunities for synergy and collaboration between different Gen AI initiatives, and ensure that Gen AI projects are aligned with the needs and priorities of different business units.
6 Key Principles for Effective Check-ins Addressing Gen AI Disruption
Several core principles underpin successful Gen AI project check-ins:
Collaboration over Control: The emphasis should be on collaborative problem-solving, not issuing mandates. Leadership should act as a guide and facilitator, empowering teams to take ownership of their work.
Focus on Learning and Iteration: Gen AI projects are inherently experimental. Check-ins should create a safe space for teams to discuss challenges, even setbacks, without fear of reprisal. This fosters a culture of learning and continuous improvement.
Actionable Feedback: Feedback should be constructive and actionable, focusing on specific areas for improvement, such as model refinement, data quality, or alignment with business objectives.
Strategic Alignment: Check-ins provide an opportunity to ensure that the Gen AI project remains aligned with the organization’s broader strategic goals. This includes reassessing project goals as needed and identifying opportunities for cross-team collaboration.
Celebrating Wins: Recognizing and celebrating even small wins can significantly boost team morale and motivation, especially during long-term projects.
Preventing Tunnel Vision: Check-ins can help prevent teams from becoming too narrowly focused on their specific project, encouraging cross-team knowledge sharing and alignment with broader organizational objectives.
Client Case Study: Streamlining Customer Support with Gen AI
As a consultant, I recently worked with a mid-sized regional bank (approximately 500 employees) that sought to improve its customer support efficiency using Gen AI. The bank was experiencing increasing call volumes and longer wait times, leading to customer dissatisfaction.
When I spoke to the leadership team, I cited research from McKinsey showing that customer service productivity can be improved by up to 45%, including a specific study by McKinsey on credit customer assistance. They decided to go ahead with a project, and we initiated a Gen AI project to develop a chatbot capable of handling routine customer inquiries, freeing up human agents to address more complex issues. We established bi-weekly check-ins with the project team, consisting of data scientists, software engineers, and customer service representatives.
During these check-ins, we focused on:
Progress updates: The team presented their progress on model training, data preprocessing, and chatbot integration with existing systems
Challenge identification: The team encountered initial difficulties in training the model to accurately understand and respond to complex financial terminology
Solution exploration: We discussed potential solutions, including expanding the training dataset with more specialized financial texts and fine-tuning the model’s natural language processing capabilities
Strategic alignment: We ensured that the chatbot development remained aligned with the bank’s overall customer service strategy, focusing on improving response times and enhancing customer satisfaction
After three months, the chatbot was successfully deployed, handling approximately 40% of routine customer inquiries. Here’s what happened:
Average call wait times decreased by 25%
Customer satisfaction scores related to support interactions increased by 15% based on post-interaction surveys
The support team was able to reduce staffing by 10% through natural attrition, saving $250,000 annually
This case study demonstrates the power of regular, strategically designed check-ins in guiding Gen AI projects to achieve tangible business outcomes. By fostering collaboration, providing constructive feedback, and maintaining strategic alignment, leadership can empower teams to innovate and deliver real value through Gen AI.
Long-Term Impact
Leaders should regularly assess the effectiveness of these check-ins and make adjustments as needed.
Regular check-ins are not a one-time activity; they should be an ongoing process that evolves as the Gen AI project progresses and the organization gains more experience with the technology. Leaders should regularly assess the effectiveness of these check-ins and make adjustments as needed. This continuous improvement approach will ensure that the check-ins remain a valuable tool for guiding Gen AI initiatives and maximizing their impact on the business.
By embracing the principles outlined in this article, leaders can effectively guide their Gen AI initiatives, maximizing their potential while mitigating the associated risks. The key is to view check-ins not as control mechanisms, but as opportunities for collaboration, learning, and continuous improvement, fostering a culture of innovation and driving tangible business value.
In the past, PH targets comprised mainly the EDCA sites. Now they include the planned ammo manufacturing sites. Manila is moving from a US logistical enabler to a huge regional military hub, like Ukraine a few years ago.
Under its ultra-conservative PM Sanae Takaichi, Japan is taking the lead to set up a new program to produce propulsion systems used in many guided weapons, while the Philippines is tasked to host a large new weapons facility. The bilateral cooperation has intensified for half a decade.
Meanwhile, defense secretary Gilberto Teodoro has been negotiating stronger defense cooperation with the NATO leaders in Europe.
Following these reports, China’s foreign ministry warned the United States against bringing “conflict and the chaos of war” to the Asia-Pacific. In Beijing’s view, a potential ammunition facility would destabilize the region.
Toward major instability
The new military tasks of the Philippines were recently promoted by the Center for a New American Security (CNAS). This US thinktank played a role in legitimizing Biden administration’s engagement in Ukraine, Israel’s Gaza “war”, and Iran mobilization.
In some ASEAN countries, the concern is that these strategic moves could pave the way to major instability and possibly a major Asian war.
From an international military standpoint, the Philippines is transforming itself to serve as a forward staging area for US forces, air and naval logistics hub, missile deployment sites, ISR (intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance), sea lane control in South China Sea, and protection of Japanese/US military supply routes.
In some ASEAN countries, the concern is that these strategic moves could pave the way to major instability and possibly a major Asian war.
The following commentary draws only from public sources and discourses on EDCA locations, logistics plans, ammo sites, and targeting doctrines seen in Ukraine, Middle East, and NATO war-gaming.
US–Japanese weapons hub
In the Philippine bases, the possible US air force deployments include F-35 and F-16 fighters, P-8 maritime patrol, KC-135 and KC-46 tankers, C-17 and C-130 transports or AWACS radar aircraft.
The most sensitive issue involves missile systems. US has discussed deploying mobile missile units in the region. Possible systems feature HIMARS, Tomahawk land-attack missiles, SM-6 multi-role missiles and Naval Strike Missile (NSM). Japan is developing Type-12 anti-ship missiles and long-range cruise missiles.
Ostensibly, US ground troops would be mostly rotational, not permanent. They could feature US Marines, Army air defense units, special forces, engineers and logistics.
With naval forces, ports in Philippines could support US destroyers, submarines and amphibious ships.
Japan is also increasingly involved in radar systems to Philippines, coast guard ships, joint exercises and possible future troop access agreements.
The risk is that the Philippines is close to its perceived adversary’s missile range, has limited air defense and many bases near civilian areas.
High-priority targets
Among the primary targets, Northern Luzon is the primary operational zone. The EDCA sites include Lal-lo Airport, which is very close to Taiwan, is seen as a possible missile/transport hub, and thus a likely target for cruise or ballistic missiles.
Camilo Osias Naval Base is located near Luzon Strait. Since it could be useful for surveillance and naval staging, it is a likely high priority target. Basa Air Base could serve for fighter, tanker and ISR staging. It is a likely missile target.
Along with Northern Luzon, Palawan serves as the South China Sea axis where monitoring sites feature Antonio Bautista Air Base, which could support anti-ship operations. In turn, Balabac Island controls the passage between South China Sea and Sulu Sea. It could be useful for anti-ship missiles.
Then comes Central Luzon’s logistics core. Fort Magsaysay, the largest training base, and Mactan-Benito Ebuen Air Base, which remain relevant for training, staging and transport.
That’s the first-order military geography.
Ukrainian-style regional arms production
With the new arrangements, the new primary targets feature the Subic–Clark corridor, due to the ammunition production/assembly planned in Subic Bay Freeport. As a part of regional military-industrial cooperation, it is framed as a regional munition hub. This upgrades Subic from a “logistics port” to a war-sustaining industrial node.
The second new development involves the large US prepositioning storage. US Navy is seeking a huge storage facility likely near Subic-Clark, featuring vehicles, equipment, maintenance, and armories.
The planned forward stockpile hub is similar to US prepositioning in Europe and the Middle East. Think of US prepositioning and war reserve stocks in Kuwait, Qatar, Israel and Diego Garcia – the ones that are now under fire.
Here’s the main difference: Philippine targets will be far more exposed than those in Europe and the Middle East. And that makes Subic Bay and Clark Freeport primary targets.
A third development may be evolving in Batanes, in the north. Having opened in 2025, the Forward Operating Base in Batanes is the closest Philippine territory to Taiwan. It is seen as ideal for radar, ISR, and potentially missile staging.
The expanding list of Philippines military targets
Living dangerously
A naval blockade or a strike in this “Golden Triangle” (Subic-Clark-Manila) could effectively trap the Philippine defense manufacturing capability in one small zone. A single incident or blockade could paralyze the capital’s supply chain.
The plan to build ammunition production and assembly facilities in the Philippines changes the targeting logic of the Taiwan-war scenarios. The country will no longer be just a staging platform.
Their demise would disrupt the heartbeat of the Philippine economy and society.
Behind the fog of the corruption debacle and the energy crisis that it is highly exposed to, the Philippines is taking a huge leap from a logistical warehouse to a regional military hub – amid its greatest economic crisis in a generation.
The devastation of the outlined Philippines targets would not be just a crushing military loss. Their demise would disrupt the heartbeat of the Philippine economy and society.
In Ukraine, Gaza, Lebanon, Iran and the Middle East at large, such arrangements have served the interests of recent US administrations.
The question is, do they really serve to protect peace and prosperity in the Philippines interest?
Dr. Dan Steinbockis an internationally recognized strategist of the multipolar world and the founder of Difference Group. He has served at the India, China and America Institute (USA), Shanghai Institutes for International Studies (China) and the EU Center (Singapore). For more, see https://www.differencegroup.net
Pakistan is stepping in as a potential mediator in the ongoing U.S.-Iran conflict. Pakistani Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar said both countries have expressed confidence in Islamabad to host talks in the “coming days” aimed at ending the war.
The U.S. is meanwhile weighing a potential ground operation in Iran as thousands of troops arrive in the region. President Trump has mentioned that the conflict is slowing down but still carries the chance of getting worse. Lawmakers are wary of a full invasion, although some back sending special forces in a limited way.
Iran has intensified threats, targeting U.S. and Israeli educational institutions in the region. Meanwhile, an Iranian strike on Bahrain’s aluminum smelter has raised concerns about global supply, pushing aluminum prices higher.
Regional foreign ministers from Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Turkey met in Islamabad to discuss ways to reduce tensions. Egyptian Foreign Minister Badr Abdelatty called it a push for “direct dialogue” between Washington and Tehran, which have mostly communicated through intermediaries.
The war’s human toll continues to mount. Iranian officials report more than 1,900 deaths, Israel says 19 people have died, Lebanon counts over 1,200, and U.S. forces have recorded 13 casualties. Attacks targeting nuclear and industrial sites have damaged important infrastructure. Meanwhile, tensions continue near strategic areas such as the Strait of Hormuz, causing worries in global markets.
With Pakistan set to host talks, many are watching to see if diplomacy can help ease a crisis that is already affecting economies, energy supplies, and everyday life throughout the Middle East.
The global economy is confronting an unprecedented energy shock as the closure of the Hormuz Strait halts critical oil and gas shipments, sending prices soaring. Arthur Azizov, Founder and Investor of B2 Ventures, highlights how this disruption extends beyond energy markets: rising resource costs, inflationary pressure, financial market volatility, and banking risks are forcing policymakers and investors to navigate an exceptionally complex economic landscape.
As time goes on, it has become clear that the current crisis will have far greater significance for the global economy than it was initially thought. Markets and investors are still considering it as just another energy shock, and many continue to look at oil prices as the main outcome. Yes, oil prices are surely important, but we should look beyond that. The current environment is affecting the economy on many levels. The longer it lasts, the larger the impact will be.
Why Hormuz Matters More Than Ever
Undoubtedly, the main factor in this conflict is the closure of the Hormuz Strait. Typically, 20 million barrels of oil per day used to pass through it, along with 3-4 trillion cubic feet of liquified gas, accounting for roughly a quarter of global consumption.
Never before (even during the War between Iraq and Iran in the 1980s) has shipping through Hormuz been fully halted. That is what makes the current crisis exceptional. Think tanks and governments modelled scenarios involving a potential closure of the strait, but it was largely considered an ephemeral risk. Very few expected that such a critical artery would actually be cut off.
The shipping disruption has led to a sharp increase in oil and gas prices, and there are almost no signs that the situation will resolve quickly. The key problem with Hormuz lies in the lack of alternatives. Global oil and gas markets are highly segmented, and buyers are often tied to specific suppliers. Replacing oil from the Gulf region is extremely difficult, even though some flexibility exists.
The situation is far worse for buyers of liquefied gas from Qatar. The LNG market is much more dependent on specific supply chains, and it is extremely difficult for other players to increase production. Now, many Asian countries, which bought the LNG from Qatar, have gas reserves sufficient for only a few days or weeks. Once those are depleted, they might face a serious energy crisis.
The Shock Spreads Across Energy Markets
All of this has already pushed oil and gas prices up by 50%. Yet, it is important to look beyond energy markets, as was mentioned earlier. The halt of shipping through Hormuz affected other resources, and prices for aluminium, helium, and chemical fertilizers rose significantly. The rise in energy and input costs is putting pressure on the businesses. Many companies will either have to accept lower margins or cut production. The impact on several resource bases is what marks the current crisis from previous shocks.
It is only a question of time before these prices will affect the global economy. When the conflict began, many were concerned about inflation. Higher oil and gas prices translate into more expensive fuel and electricity, which, in turn, raise the general prices. Add to this the increase in production costs driven by higher prices for other inputs, and the result is a significant boost to inflation. Based on an economic rule of thumb, a 50% increase in energy prices can add up to 1% to inflation in developed economies. This is a noticeable increase because inflation remains above the central banks’ targets.
What Lies Beneath Oil and Inflation
Yet, inflation is only the first layer of this crisis. Central banks around the world will have to lean toward tighter monetary policy to contain rising prices. Over the last year, regulators in developed economies cut rates, but now that cycle may reverse. Higher interest rates will make borrowing more expensive for both consumers and businesses. Households will postpone large purchases, resulting in a loss of revenue for companies.
At the same time, the crisis is likely to increase volatility in financial markets. Investors have already moved a share of their assets into cash at the fastest pace since the pandemic. Normally, large investors avoid holding too much cash because it doesn’t generate profit. A rise in cash allocations almost always signals a desire to preserve capital and a concern about the market.
At a certain point, this dynamic can become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Selling assets pushes their prices down, which makes investors shift more funds into cash. Although markets remained relatively stable and the S&P 500 traded in a narrow 1-2% range, portfolio reallocations suggest reconsidering risk.
These market conditions also increase pressure on banks, especially in regions depending on energy flows. Estimates suggest Gulf banks could face $300 billion in deposit outflows, along with rising credit risks. In response, banks worldwide may tighten lending standards, leading to a decrease in consumer activity. This will put additional pressure on business revenues.
Is There Anything Central Banks Can Do?
All this makes it extremely hard for central banks to make the decision. Rising inflationary pressure needs a tighter monetary policy. Yet, this time the price increase came from the supply side. Manipulating interest rates could be insufficient to contain inflation. At the same time, such a policy will undermine economic growth and corporate profits. As a result, policymakers will have to balance between supporting growth and taming inflation. In practice, however, central banks tend to fight inflation, since there is not so much benefit from rising incomes if all prices in the economy also rise.
Arthur Azizovis a fintech entrepreneur and investor with more than 15 years of experience in financial markets. He is the founder of B2 Ventures, a fintech group focused on financial infrastructure and digital banking. His work focuses on developing technology-driven services for institutional clients.
By Terence Tse
CFOs are evolving into AI-driven transformation orchestrators, balancing finance, technology, and strategy while upskilling teams, managing risks, and driving measurable business value.
A key insight from this year’s AI for CFOs event, organized...
The World Financial Review uses cookies to improve site functionality, provide you with a better browsing experience, and to enable our partners to advertise to you. Detailed information on the use of cookies on this Site, and how you can decline them, is provided in our Privacy Policy and Terms and Conditions. By clicking on the accept button and using this Site, you consent to our Privacy Policy and Terms and Conditions. ACCEPT
Privacy & Cookies Policy
Privacy Overview
This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these cookies, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may have an effect on your browsing experience.
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.
Joseph Mazur
Dr. Gleb Tsipursky
Dr. Dan Steinbock
Arthur Azizov
