Could Global Wars Trigger a Market Crash in 2025?

Last week saw two major geopolitical shocks: South Korea's president declared martial law (later rescinded), and Syrian ruler Bashar al-Assad was toppled from power. Far from de-escalating conflicts, the Ukraine-Russia war and Israel-Hamas tensions remain unresolved. The world seems to be adding new flashpoints by the day.

As investors, we hope for global stability to sustain prosperous financial markets. However, a concerning pattern is emerging that could derail markets in 2025.

Before proceeding, I want to clarify that this is speculative analysis aimed at considering worst-case scenarios. While these are hypothetical, exploring such risks can help prepare for potential global disruptions. Indulge me for a moment.

Today’s geopolitical landscape is increasingly divided into two blocs:

• Western Bloc: NATO, Ukraine, Israel, and South Korea

• Eastern Bloc: Russia, Iran, Syria, and North Korea

History has shown that alliances can escalate conflicts rather than prevent them, as they embolden members and amplify their combined power.

Consider the interconnected nature of recent flashpoints. Russia has been resisting NATO’s eastern expansion by invading Ukraine and annexing Crimea. In return, Russia has received soldiers from North Korea and drones from Iran. Meanwhile, Bashar al-Assad relied heavily on Russian and Iranian support to maintain power in Syria, creating a hostile environment near Israel's borders.

Israel, seeing Assad's fall as a strategic opportunity, quickly seized the buffer zone in the Golan Heights to gain critical defensive depth. This military maneuver was likely calculated to preempt Iranian-backed militias or Hezbollah from filling the power vacuum.

The toppling of Bashar al-Assad can be seen as a significant setback for Russia and Iran—a geopolitical win for the U.S. and Israel. Assad’s ousting weakens Russia's influence in the Middle East and diverts its already strained military resources amid the Ukraine war.

Russia previously redeployed some of its Syrian forces to Ukraine, possibly reducing Assad’s protection. At this stage, Russia seems unlikely to restore Assad’s rule.

Meanwhile, halfway across the globe, South Korea’s political stability has been shaken. Its ruling party swiftly stripped the president of his powers to prevent an authoritarian takeover, avoiding the risk of the president projecting internal troubles outward by launching a war with North Korea.

However, this power struggle raises the possibility of North Korea exploiting South Korea’s political instability. If North Korea were to launch an offensive, it could ignite another major warfront, drawing in regional powers and triggering broader conflict.

Unlike the Middle East, the Korean Peninsula has remained relatively peaceful since the end of the Korean War in 1953. However, this calm could end abruptly if North Korea perceives a window of opportunity.

Given Russia’s deep military entanglements in Ukraine, North Korea might turn to China for support. During the Korean War, China played a decisive role in helping North Korea. However, in today’s context, China may refrain from military involvement unless the U.S. deploys significant troop reinforcements to South Korea. Direct military confrontation between China and the U.S. could escalate into World War III.

China’s measured approach to global conflicts has been mostly economic rather than military. Despite U.S. sanctions, China continues to purchase oil from Russia and Iran, while supplying goods to both nations and North Korea. This relationship is likely to persist as Beijing seeks to assert its global influence without direct military involvement.

China’s military exercises near Taiwan seem more like posturing than genuine preparations for war. Its primary focus appears to be fostering economic prosperity at home—a goal that requires geopolitical stability, not war.

If a global conflict were to escalate into World War III, financial markets would suffer significant losses. Stocks, bonds, and real estate would likely tank, while gold could be one of the few assets appreciating during such a crisis.

However, owning physical gold is essential in this scenario. If global markets shut down or trading halts due to geopolitical conflicts, gold ETFs or similar paper-backed instruments may become illiquid or even inaccessible. In contrast, physical gold—whether in coins, bars, or vault storage—remains within your control and retains value regardless of market conditions.

In an uncertain world, holding something tangible in your hands can provide more security than any paper portfolio.

While I don’t believe a global war is imminent in 2025, the probability isn’t zero. The alignment of power blocs and the number of unresolved global flashpoints remain concerning.

Ultimately, much depends on the decisions made by global leaders, especially those in the world’s most powerful nations. If rational thinking prevails, 2025 could still be another prosperous year for investors.

Let’s hope that diplomacy and strategic calculations triumph over conflict. After all, in a world of interconnected economies, global peace remains the best investment we can make.