Not because it would fail to inflict damage. But because it could lock the global economy into a crisis that lasts far longer than the war itself.
According to Philip, oil markets have remained surprisingly calm because investors still assume escalation can be contained.
He argues that assumption disappears the moment energy infrastructure becomes a battlefield.
His point is that repairing pipelines, export terminals and refineries takes months, sometimes more than a year.
Every strike extends the disruption.
Even if the fighting ends quickly, the economic consequences don't.
Philip also believes Washington has relied on the ability to repeatedly de-escalate whenever oil prices threatened to spike.
If that option disappears, he argues, markets will be forced to confront risks they have largely ignored.
His warning goes beyond oil.
He believes a prolonged energy shock would hit major importers like Japan first, expose deeper cracks in the global financial system, and eventually put pressure on the U.S. dollar itself.
In his view, striking Iran's energy infrastructure wouldn't end the crisis.
It would simply make it much harder to stop.
@philippilk
