Investor's War Preparation Checklist: How Warren Buffett, Ray Dalio, and Other Financial Elites Are Preparing for World War III Threats

The two most influential investors of our time, Warren Buffett and Ray Dalio, show completely different attitudes when it comes to responding to geopolitical crises. This difference fundamentally stems from their respective political stances and economic philosophies. If the Strait of Hormuz truly were closed by Iran, the global financial markets would face unprecedented challenges—and their advice reflects a collision between traditional investment principles and the logic of modern warfare.

Strait of Hormuz Crisis: How Energy Disruption Will Change the Global Economy

For the past forty years, the Strait of Hormuz has been at the center of geopolitical storms. During the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s, Iran repeatedly threatened to block this vital global energy route, causing oil prices to surge from $30 to over $45 per barrel. Shipping insurance costs doubled, and captains of oil tankers called this region the “Death Corridor.”

In the 21st century, after the U.S. announced withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal and reimposed sanctions in 2018, Iran flexed its muscles again, claiming it could disrupt oil shipments through the Strait. In July of that year, Iran seized a British oil tanker, causing oil prices to rise slightly. But these were just preludes.

The events of March 1-2, 2026, marked a quantum leap. Iran’s parliament announced consensus on “closing the Strait of Hormuz,” and a senior advisor to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps publicly declared the strait had been sealed. Although the UK maritime authorities said they had not received formal legal notice, the reality had already transcended legal boundaries—this was de facto blockade.

Insurance costs became the first barrier. Major shipping insurers, facing soaring war risk premiums, stopped issuing policies for ships entering the region. Without insurance, serious shipping companies dared not risk navigation. Meanwhile, GPS spoofing and signal jamming technology caused ships’ navigation systems to display false positions, “teleporting” fleets onto land or off course. Shipping giants Maersk and Hapag-Lloyd announced suspensions of relevant routes, plunging the world’s busiest energy corridor into unprecedented silence.

Real-time AIS (Automatic Identification System) data vividly illustrates this shift: on March 1-2, the number of large oil tankers passing through the Strait nearly dropped to zero, with no LNG carriers in sight. An estimated 200,000 barrels of oil per day went missing. According to Goldman Sachs, if the closure persists, Brent crude could quickly surpass $100 per barrel.

Domino Effect of the Global Energy Crisis

This energy supply disruption first hits the U.S. Despite recent energy independence, global oil prices are interconnected. As Brent crude rises from $82 on March 3, U.S. gasoline prices will spike sharply. This would wipe out the Fed’s efforts over the past two years to control inflation, forcing it to maintain high interest rates or even trigger a recession.

The blow to Japan, South Korea, and European allies is even more severe. These countries rely heavily on energy imports via the Strait. Iran’s actions are effectively pressuring these U.S. allies to Washington’s demands, including restrictions on Israel’s military actions. It’s a sophisticated geopolitical leverage—using energy as a weapon to achieve diplomatic isolation. Worse, 2026 coincides with a sensitive U.S. election cycle, and the inflationary surge caused by the crisis could be the deadliest political poison for the ruling party.

Israel faces not only direct threats. While its oil mainly comes from Azerbaijan and other sources, the full escalation of risks around “closing” the Strait and the Red Sea route will impact Israel’s economy. The surge in global trade costs will directly raise prices for imported electronics, raw materials, and food. Insurers are already refusing to cover ships heading to Israeli ports. Meanwhile, the economic turbulence from the energy crisis will weaken Western countries’ long-term ability to support Israel’s military operations.

Clash of Investment Philosophies: How Warren Buffett’s Political Stance Shapes His War Advice

Different responses reveal clear ideological divides among investment giants. Warren Buffett embodies a conservative investment philosophy deeply rooted in American business tradition. When Russia annexed Crimea in 2014, Buffett’s advice reflected both his investment wisdom and his political stance as a member of the American establishment.

He warned against selling stocks during wartime, hoarding cash, or buying gold or Bitcoin. His logic is based on a core belief—that in any war, currencies tend to depreciate. “This has almost always happened in every war I’ve known,” he said, “so during wartime, the worst thing you can hold is cash.” This stance fundamentally trusts in the resilience of the U.S. financial system and the long-term profitability of American companies. It’s both an investment recommendation and a political expression of confidence in America’s destiny.

In contrast, Ray Dalio, founder of Bridgewater Associates, recently issued a starkly different warning. Last year, as the Trump administration discussed incorporating Greenland into U.S. territory, Dalio cautioned that escalating geopolitical tensions and volatile markets were pushing the world toward a “capitalist war” brink. His framing—highlighting systemic risks rather than trust in the U.S. system—reflects a more anxious, forward-looking political-economic stance.

Dalio’s view on gold is also more pragmatic. He emphasizes that gold’s value isn’t always rising but that it has a very low correlation with most financial assets. Gold has risen about 65% since last year but has pulled back roughly 16% from its cycle high. True investors shouldn’t fall into the trap of “buying on the rise, selling on the dip.” He sees gold’s real utility as a diversification tool—providing resilience during recessions, credit crunches, and market panics; remaining silent during economic expansion and risk appetite.

JPMorgan’s outlook is even more pessimistic. The bank believes the previous optimistic outlook must be abandoned, with the probability of a global recession now exceeding 35%. They recommend defensive positions—more cash, shorter bond durations—an explicit acknowledgment of systemic risks.

Asset Repricing in War: Gold, Silver, Oil, and Cryptocurrencies

If this escalates into a global confrontation, the fundamental logic of asset prices will change. Gold, as a traditional safe haven, is well understood. Silver, however, is more complex—it’s both a precious metal and an industrial raw material. During rising war fears, silver often follows gold initially but then suffers significant volatility as industrial demand drops.

Oil remains at the heart of this game. The Strait of Hormuz transports one-fifth of the world’s oil daily. A true disruption would cause prices to rise without emotional triggers—physical facts are the strongest support. Facing a daily shortfall of 20 million barrels, analysts expect Brent crude to quickly break $100.

Bitcoin’s behavior will be even more dramatic. In early conflict stages, Bitcoin acts more like a volatile tech stock than gold. When risk assets are sold off globally, investors tend to dump the most volatile assets first. Margin calls, stablecoin runs, and exchange liquidity crises could cause sharp short-term declines. Oxford Economics predicts that if the conflict lasts over two months, global equities could fall 15-20%, with Bitcoin likely following suit.

But if the conflict escalates into a true global war, crippling traditional financial systems, the role of cryptocurrencies will fundamentally change. Under stricter capital controls and cross-border settlement restrictions, the ability to transfer value via blockchain will be reassessed. Mining distribution, electricity supply, and computing power will become geopolitical variables. Stablecoin structures will be scrutinized, and jurisdictional issues of exchanges will become new risks. The question then shifts from “bull or bear market” to “who can still trade freely, who can still exchange freely.”

Goldman Sachs’ Inflation Hedge Strategy and the New Business Logic of Capitalist Warfare

Goldman Sachs focuses on the chain reaction triggered by rising energy prices. Increased transportation, production, and food costs could revive global inflation. Once inflation expectations reassert, central banks will tighten policies, and liquidity environments will shift. Goldman’s advice is straightforward: hedge inflation risk via commodities futures and TIPS. The goal isn’t growth but preparing for currency devaluation.

Deeper still, the logic involves a fundamental shift in asset pricing under “war conditions.” When moving from “competition” to “full confrontation,” physical assets will be prioritized. Land, agricultural products, energy resources, and strategic industrial raw materials like lithium, cobalt, and rare earths—assets once seen as cyclical—will become key war resources. War consumes resources first, then capital. Stocks and derivatives depend on corporate profits and financial stability, but physical assets have an initial certainty. When supply chains break, control over tangible assets will surpass book value.

Next come tech sector fluctuations. In peacetime, AI and semiconductors are growth stories; in wartime, they are core to production capacity. Computing power determines management efficiency, chips define weapon system performance, satellite communications control information sovereignty. Data centers, energy infrastructure, and low-earth orbit satellite networks will rapidly become national strategic assets.

Personal Investor Preparedness Framework

For individual investors, this crisis demands a hybrid approach. Traditional defensive tools (gold, bonds) must be used more cautiously, as their effectiveness depends on the continued operation of the financial system. Simultaneously, exposure to emerging assets—such as low-correlation physical assets and strategic raw materials—should be increased.

Buffett’s long-term investment philosophy still holds value, especially for those trusting in the resilience of the U.S. financial system. But Dalio’s risk awareness and Goldman’s inflation hedging advice should not be ignored. True preparedness involves balancing multiple scenarios rather than choosing an extreme stance.

If the Strait of Hormuz remains turbulent, then everything has already become an irreversible reality—the turning point is here. Investors are making their final preparations based on their political and economic beliefs for an uncertain future.