The Rules Matter More Than the Noise
A lot of noise from news sources
Every major event comes with a familiar soundtrack—and today was no exception.
Outrage. Certainty. Declarations made before the facts have finished digesting.
I’m not here for that.
I’m here to ask: What are the real rules the US is playing by?”
I’m interested to know what are the real rules the US is playing by.
With our short attention span and even less ability to analyze, having our thoughts spoonfed by Congress, Social media, and Sound bites is not a winning formula.
While war moves on emotion, everything else is based on what has been: precedent and law.
Before deciding how to feel, you have to answer a simpler question:
Which rulebook governs this moment?
There are three different legal universes that exist at the same time whenever force is used.
People argue because they assume only one applies.
1. When force is allowed at all
This is governed by the UN Charter.
The rule is simple:
States may not use force against other states—except with UN authorization or in self-defense.
2. How force must be used once it begins
This is governed by the Geneva Conventions and the Hague Regulations.
Here’s the part people miss:
Even if force is controversial, the rules still apply once it’s used.
That means:
Distinction between civilians and fighters
Proportionality
Military necessity
Humane treatment of detainees
This is not optional.
It’s automatic.
3. What happens after someone is detained
This is criminal law and human rights law.
If someone is brought to court:
Due process matters
Treatment matters
Evidence matters
Calling someone a “terrorist” doesn’t erase this layer.
It never has.
Why Classification Is the Real Story
The public debate is framed as moral.
The real debate is categorical.
Is this:
A war?
A cross-border arrest?
A temporary occupation?
Each answer activates a different set of obligations.
That’s why language matters.
And that’s why mixing phrases like “indicted criminal,” “overwhelming military force,” and “running the country” creates tension.
Not emotional tension.
Legal tension.
That’s the story most people are talking past.
Is it 1961? 1962? 1987? 1989? 1991?
Do you know these dates?
1961 - Bay of Pigs, 1962 - Cuban Missile Crisis, 1987 - Fx and Market Reset 1989 - Noriega ousted from Panama, 1991 - Iraq war 1
It’s too soon for me to put things together but these are the years I’m going to reflect on.
So where am I looking? Infrastructure. The unglamorous companies that show up after the speeches end.
But for investments, I do have ideas as we already spoke about them. I don’t enjoy jumping in when its clear to everyone as when a regime cracks or shifts, headlines and money chase exploitation.
Unless the play is so beaten down that even if it pops it has a long runway ahead. I’m not in it for 3-5 days when I get involved my intention is for the entire investment cycle to play out and why outlook and story is as important as the numbers.
For the ouster of Maduro, specifcially the companies that rebuild systems after politics clears should be winners.
Oil doesn’t restart itself.
Pipelines don’t heal emotionally.
Fields don’t care who gave the speech.
That’s why in past cycles—Russia, Iraq, and now Venezuela—I’ve focused on oil-service providers like Schlumberger and Weatherford.
They don’t own the oil.
They don’t make promises.
They fix what’s broken.
That’s a structural trade, not an emotional one.
For paid subscribers, I’ll share additional Venezuela-specific ideas I’ve been studying—some sparked by threads and conversations on Twitter—along with how I’m thinking about timing and cycles.
This X handle I share nailed silver as well by the way.
Have a great brunch
Eric
PS. The paid section is designed for busy people: things I’m looking at, designing, challenges I’m facing, and deep dive into relevant books which is Benjamin Graham right now.
My chat is free. If you need clarity or another perspective, ask. The more feedback I get, the better I understand what you actually want.
