Inside the Mind of a Geopolitical Analyst: Professionals Actually Predict War Outcomes

Signum Global Advisors' Andrew Bishop reveals the systematic process behind assigning probabilities to seemingly unpredictable events—and why most clients don't actually use analysts for the predictions themselves.

Key Takeaways

• Geopolitical clients use analysts more like F1 racing coaches—memorizing every potential turn before events unfold rather than relying on outcome predictions
• Probability assignments aren't based on historical models but serve as logic checks, clustering tools, and frameworks for breaking down complex scenarios
• Most successful predictions focus on "gray swans"—visible risks like pandemics or military buildups—rather than truly unknowable black swan events
• Trump's behavior follows observable patterns despite unpredictability, with analysts tracking 23 threats where he backed down in 21 cases
• The increasing complexity of international relationships makes modern geopolitical analysis significantly more difficult than in previous decades
• China's potential Taiwan action likely involves overnight blockade rather than invasion, with no advance warning buildup like other conflicts
• Technical military knowledge can be outsourced, but analysts must understand political leaders' survival incentives and motivational frameworks
• Financial markets often show counterintuitive responses to geopolitical events, with oil frequently falling rather than rising during Middle East tensions
• Successful analysis requires constant reassessment of rules and patterns rather than relying on grand theories or overarching frameworks

Timeline Overview

• 00:00–15:00 — Introduction to geopolitical analysis challenges: Why war prediction seems impossible, client usage patterns, financial versus corporate applications
• 15:00–30:00 — Methodology breakdown: Probability assignment processes, scenario tree construction, mathematical logic checks, clustering techniques for multiple outcomes
• 30:00–45:00 — Iran-Israel case study: June 2024 predictions, breaking down intervention probabilities, component analysis of US involvement likelihood
• 45:00–60:00 — Trump analysis framework: Observable behavioral patterns, TACO principle applications, avoiding grand theories, focusing on specific motivational contexts
• 60:00–75:00 — Research process deep dive: Technical knowledge sourcing, political survival logic, expert consultation methods, avoiding intel-based predictions
• 75:00–90:00 — Handling prediction failures: Multiple scenario tracking, learning from mistakes, reassessing analytical frameworks, maintaining analytical humility
• 90:00–105:00 — Modern complexity challenges: Relationship regime changes, alliance uncertainty, slower geopolitical transitions, increased unpredictability factors

The F1 Driver Framework: Why Clients Don't Want Predictions

Bishop's most counterintuitive insight reveals that sophisticated investors don't primarily use geopolitical analysts for outcome predictions but rather as preparation tools for navigating rapid-fire decisions during crisis periods.

• Clients describe the relationship like F1 drivers using training tracks to memorize every turn, knowing when to accelerate or brake before the actual race begins
• Unlike F1 racing, the geopolitical "track" constantly changes, but the mental preparation process helps clients react faster when events unfold
• During conflicts like Iran-Israel tensions, multiple decision points emerge: Will Israel strike? Is this symbolic or serious? Will the US intervene? How long will conflict last?
• Investors don't expect analysts to correctly predict every micro-decision but want frameworks for understanding possible outcomes and their implications
• The goal involves reducing decision-making time during volatile periods when markets move rapidly based on geopolitical developments
• Most prediction market prices reflect oversimplified binary outcomes, while real geopolitical situations involve complex chains of conditional probabilities
• Success gets measured not by perfect prediction accuracy but by providing useful mental models that enable better real-time decision-making
• Clients benefit from pre-thinking through scenario implications rather than scrambling to understand events as they happen

This framework explains why geopolitical analysis remains valuable despite the inherent unpredictability of international relations and conflict outcomes.

The Mathematics of Uncertainty: How Probabilities Actually Work

Rather than using historical models or sophisticated quantitative techniques, geopolitical analysts employ probabilities as logical frameworks for breaking down complex scenarios into manageable component parts.

• Most shops don't actually model geopolitical events mathematically because there aren't enough historical case studies for statistical significance
• Probability assignments serve three main functions: logic checking (ensuring scenarios add up to 100%), clustering non-base cases, and breaking complex events into sub-components
• Bishop's Israel-Iran analysis started with 100% probability, then subtracted likelihood of Iranian diplomatic capitulation (20%), leaving 80% for continued conflict
• Within remaining scenarios, analysts estimate Israeli capability to finish independently versus requiring US intervention, building compound probabilities
• The process reveals that even low individual probabilities for specific outcomes can combine to create high overall likelihood of general result categories
• Clustering becomes important when multiple negative scenarios might individually be unlikely but collectively more probable than the base case
• Mathematical errors in probability assignment often highlight logical problems in analytical reasoning rather than computational mistakes
• The framework forces analysts to explicitly state assumptions about individual components rather than making broad intuitive judgments

This systematic approach transforms vague geopolitical speculation into structured analytical processes that can be evaluated and improved over time.

Gray Swans vs Black Swans: What Actually Surprises Markets

The distinction between truly unpredictable events and visible-but-mistimed risks fundamentally shapes how professional analysts allocate attention and research resources.

• Black swans represent genuinely unknowable events that can't be systematically analyzed or prepared for in advance
• Gray swans involve risks that are widely visible and discussed but difficult to time precisely, such as pandemics, military conflicts, or financial crises
• COVID-19 exemplifies gray swan dynamics: pandemic risk appeared in top-five global risk reports for fifteen years before 2020
• Similarly, Putin's Ukraine invasion involved four to five months of visible military buildup before the actual attack
• The analytical challenge involves predicting specific timing and details rather than whether events will occur at all
• Most market-moving geopolitical events fall into the gray swan category, making systematic analysis more valuable than waiting for unpredictable surprises
• Investors often treat gray swans as black swans because they struggle with timing uncertainty even when directional risks are clear
• Professional analysts focus on improving timing precision and scenario details rather than identifying completely novel risks

This focus on gray swans explains why experienced analysts emphasize process and systematic thinking over creative speculation about unknown unknowns.

Decoding Trump: Pattern Recognition in Unpredictable Behavior

Despite Trump's reputation for unpredictability, Bishop's analysis reveals observable patterns that enable systematic assessment of his likely actions across different policy domains.

• Systematic tracking of Trump's threats showed he backed down in 21 out of 23 cases during his first term, creating the foundation for "TACO" analysis
• However, patterns evolve over time, requiring constant reassessment as Trump's behavior showed increasing follow-through in his second term
• Trade policy analysis benefits from identifying specific motivations rather than applying grand theories about China-focused strategy
• Mexico faced different treatment based on issue context: fentanyl/immigration concerns proved transactional while energy market disputes generated harder positions
• Trump's advisors can make extreme statements as long as they don't reduce his optionality or box him into specific positions
• Taking Trump literally (not just seriously) often provides more analytical value than dismissing specific statements as negotiating tactics
• Press secretary language patterns offer clues: promising to "sign executive orders" differs from promising to "implement tariffs"
• Success requires examining each situation individually rather than assuming consistent behavior across all policy domains

This granular approach to pattern recognition enables more accurate short-term predictions while acknowledging the limitations of long-term forecasting.

The Intelligence Trap: Why Access Doesn't Equal Accuracy

Professional geopolitical analysis deliberately avoids relying on insider access or intelligence sources, focusing instead on systematic process and logical frameworks that can be consistently applied.

• Intelligence-based analysis often fails because even high-level officials don't know outcomes in advance: "Scott Bessent himself didn't know on April 8 whether Trump was going to back down the next day"
• Country expertise provides valuable context but doesn't guarantee predictive accuracy about specific events or timing
• Signum's value proposition centers on analytical process rather than privileged information or regional specialization
• The firm adopts Phil Tetlock's principle that predictive success depends more on systematic thinking methods than insider knowledge or credentials
• Political survival logic (leaders prioritizing their own advantage) provides more reliable analytical foundation than personality-based assessments
• Technical military knowledge gets outsourced to experts when needed rather than maintained in-house, allowing focus on political and strategic analysis
• Breaking complex questions into sub-components enables targeted expert consultation without requiring comprehensive in-house expertise
• This process-focused approach creates reproducible analytical methods that can be taught, evaluated, and improved over time

The systematic rejection of insider access as analytical foundation reflects professional recognition that prediction requires logic over connections.

When Analysts Get It Wrong: Learning from Failure

Bishop's candid discussion of analytical failures reveals how professional geopolitical analysts handle incorrect predictions and extract lessons for future assessments.

• Multiple predictions within single events mean analysts often get some calls right while missing others, requiring nuanced evaluation of overall performance
• Iran case study showed accurate predictions on regime change, Hormuz strait security, and Israeli oil targeting while missing US intervention likelihood
• Post-analysis revealed excessive focus on Israeli technical capabilities versus insufficient attention to Trump's political motivations for involvement
• The learning process involves identifying which specific analytical components failed rather than dismissing entire frameworks
• Ironically, Bishop's earlier correct predictions about Israeli strike capabilities may have led to overconfidence in their independence from US support
• Successful analysts maintain multiple analytical rules while recognizing that yesterday's patterns may not apply to tomorrow's situations
• Constant reassessment becomes necessary because geopolitical relationships and leader incentives evolve continuously
• Analytical humility involves acknowledging that no single framework provides universal predictive power across all situations

This systematic approach to failure analysis enables continuous improvement in analytical methods while maintaining appropriate skepticism about forecasting limits.

The Complexity Crisis: Why Modern Geopolitical Analysis Gets Harder

The increasing pace of international relationship changes creates unprecedented challenges for analysts who traditionally relied on stable patterns and historical precedents.

• Previously stable relationships like Russia-China dynamics maintained predictable "axis of convenience" patterns for fifteen years before Ukraine changed everything
• Rapid relationship evolution reduces available historical data for analytical frameworks, forcing analysts to work with even smaller data sets
• Traditional alliance structures and partnership assumptions require constant reevaluation as geopolitical tensions reshape international cooperation
• The temptation to "make it up as you go" increases when historical patterns become less reliable, creating analytical risks
• Multiple simultaneous relationship changes compound uncertainty by eliminating stable reference points for comparative analysis
• Even experienced analysts struggle to distinguish temporary tactical shifts from permanent strategic realignments in real-time
• The acceleration of change means less time for patterns to establish before circumstances shift again
• This complexity explosion particularly affects timing predictions, where specific dates and sequences become even more difficult to forecast

Modern analysts must balance pattern recognition with recognition that the international system itself is changing faster than historical precedent.

The Taiwan Question: Overnight Crisis Scenarios

Bishop's assessment of China-Taiwan tensions illustrates how high-probability geopolitical events might unfold in ways that markets and policymakers aren't prepared to handle.

• Chinese action against Taiwan appears likely within five years, but probably involves blockade rather than amphibious invasion
• Unlike other recent conflicts, Chinese blockade could roll out overnight without the months-long military buildup that preceded Russia's Ukraine invasion
• A "bloodless blockade" lasting three to six months could prove more economically disruptive than a shorter, more violent conflict
• The continuous "anaconda squeeze" scenario creates sustained business operational disruption rather than sharp but time-limited market shock
• Markets tend to focus on invasion scenarios while underapprecimating blockade risks that don't involve direct military confrontation
• The speed element—waking up to find blockade already implemented—eliminates preparation time that markets typically use for positioning
• Length of disruption rather than intensity of conflict may determine ultimate economic impact on regional and global business operations
• This scenario planning illustrates how geopolitical analysts must consider operational implications beyond simple binary conflict/peace frameworks

The Taiwan analysis demonstrates how professional geopolitical assessment combines probability estimation with practical impact analysis for different scenario types.

The Path Forward

Andrew Bishop's insights reveal geopolitical analysis as a systematic discipline that acknowledges its own limitations while providing genuine value through structured thinking about uncertain events. The key lies not in perfect prediction but in better preparation.

The most valuable aspect involves helping decision-makers think through scenario implications before crises hit, enabling faster and more informed responses when events unfold rapidly. This preparation-focused approach explains why sophisticated investors continue paying for geopolitical analysis despite its inherent uncertainty.

The increasing complexity of international relations makes this analytical discipline more challenging but potentially more valuable. As traditional patterns break down and new relationships form, systematic approaches to uncertainty become more important than ever.

Success requires balancing pattern recognition with humility about forecasting limits, using probabilities as logical tools rather than precise predictions, and constantly reassessing analytical frameworks as circumstances evolve.

Practical Implications

• Scenario Pre-Planning: Use geopolitical analysis for preparation rather than prediction, thinking through response options before crises occur
• Component Breakdown: Analyze complex events by breaking them into sub-questions rather than attempting single comprehensive predictions
• Pattern Tracking: Monitor observable patterns in leader behavior while remaining open to evolution and change in established patterns
• Gray Swan Focus: Prioritize analysis of visible but poorly-timed risks over speculation about completely unknown events
• Process Over Access: Develop systematic analytical methods rather than relying on insider information or privileged access
• Failure Learning: Systematically analyze prediction failures to identify specific analytical components that need improvement
• Complexity Recognition: Accept that modern geopolitical analysis operates with smaller data sets and faster change than historical precedent
• Speed Preparation: Prepare for scenarios that might unfold overnight without traditional warning signs or military buildups