ALL INPredictions
Last updated Nov 29, 2025
Episodes / E152: Real estate chaos, WeWork bankruptcy, Biden regulates AI, Ukraine's "Cronkite Moment" & more
Back
Chamath @ 00:18:27Wrong
conflictmarketseconomy
The Israel–Gaza conflict that escalated in late 2023 will, over time (within the next couple of years), revert to the historical pattern of intermittent "conflict, time out" cycles rather than expanding into a broader, ongoing regional war; as markets perceive it as another temporary flare-up, they will de-risk it, contributing to a supportive environment for equities and startups and giving the Federal Reserve room to begin cutting interest rates once inflation and growth data permit.
Now that leaves, I think, Israel Gaza as a risk. And I think people and I think the markets still view that as a potential war. And the longer that goes on. I think that there's a very good chance that we de-risk that as well as, again, not a war, but part of that cycle between Israel and Palestine, which is conflict, time out, conflict time out, conflict time out. And so if what we think is now this is just a version of conflict timeout and the market de-risks that, then it's actually pretty positive for equities for startups, because now the fed has a reason to actually say, okay, the economy has cooled off, inflation is calm. It looks like the markets are stable. Let's cut rates.View on YouTube
Explanation

Chamath’s core claim was that the Israel–Gaza escalation would not evolve into a broader regional war but would revert to the historical pattern of “conflict, time out” between Israel and the Palestinians, and that markets would therefore de‑risk it, giving the Fed room to cut.

By late 2025, the conflict has clearly not reverted to a contained, cyclical Gaza flare‑up. Instead it has become what is widely described as a Middle Eastern crisis (2023–present), an ongoing regional conflict spanning multiple theaters: Gaza and Israel, the West Bank, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, the Red Sea, Iran, Qatar and the Strait of Hormuz.(en.wikipedia.org) This includes:

  • A prolonged Hezbollah–Israel front and a 2024 Israeli invasion of southern Lebanon.(en.wikipedia.org)
  • Direct Iranian missile barrages against Israel in April and October 2024, and large Israeli retaliatory strikes inside Iran later in 2024, plus an undeclared 12‑day Israel–Iran war in June 2025.(en.wikipedia.org)
  • Extensive Houthi attacks on Red Sea shipping and repeated Israeli (and US/UK) airstrikes in Yemen, as well as US strikes on Iran‑aligned militias in Iraq and Syria.(en.wikipedia.org)

The Gaza war itself has remained intense and prolonged, with only a temporary January–March 2025 ceasefire before major Israeli operations resumed, and a broader ceasefire taking effect only in October 2025—much longer and more destructive than the shorter "conflict, timeout" episodes he was invoking.(en.wikipedia.org) This contradicts his expectation that it would essentially be “not a war” but just another entry in the usual Israel–Palestine cycle.

On the other hand, markets have indeed treated the conflict’s global economic impact as limited: research from the World Bank and Bloomberg Intelligence notes that, despite the human and regional toll, the Israel–Hamas war has so far had limited impact on global commodities and growth, with only a small or negligible geopolitical risk premium priced into oil.(businesstoday.in) The S&P 500 has rallied strongly in 2024–2025 on AI and earnings, and strategists project further gains, indicating that equities are not dominated by Middle East war risk pricing.(reuters.com) The Federal Reserve has also begun cutting rates, moving from 5.25–5.50% in mid‑2023 down to 3.75–4.00% by October 2025 as inflation eased and growth cooled.(en.wikipedia.org)

However, in the podcast he explicitly framed the bullish market/Fed scenario as contingent on the conflict not being a war but just another standard “conflict, time out” episode. That key geopolitical premise proved wrong: the situation evolved into a multi‑front regional conflict involving several states and proxy forces, not merely a localized Gaza round. Given that the central, time‑bounded claim about the nature and trajectory of the conflict failed, the prediction as stated is best classified as wrong, even though some downstream market and Fed outcomes occurred for reasons largely independent of that premise.