Well-known macro analyst Alex Kruger re-creates the comparison between the tables after the start of Iran-related shocks: the markets are repeating the 2022 shocks of Russia and Ukraine, with crypto and Bitcoin following a particularly disturbing pattern.
Yes, settings rhyme, Kruger wrote in a March 4 Substack note. But he argues where the analogy matters for Bitcoin: monetary policy and the continued energy shock. “The markets are panicking. Everyone is looking at 2022 again. The chart setups are pretty much the same and the energy shock is real,” he said. “But the comparison disappears under scrutiny. The macro is different and the oil disruption is temporary.”
What is important for Bitcoin now?
Kruger’s starting point is historical, not crypto-specific: Kinetic wars and conflicts often create “buying opportunities” even when the initial impulse is risk. The reason 2022 was so toxic for risk, he says, was not the attack itself, but what happened afterward.
In 2022, Bitcoin and risk assets in general fell on the day Russia invaded Ukraine (February 24), then jumped sharply and rolled back in late March when markets began to slide again. War was the catalyst, not the engine. The engine was the Federal Reserve, which was forced into a period of aggressive travel, when inflation was already hot, and an oil boom that worsened the inflation problem.
Kruger’s main claim is that 2026 does not have the same policy background. In 2022, the Fed was “behind the curve” with inflation at 7.9% for the year and the real Fed Funds rate around -7.5% at the start of the war. Today, he says the Fed is in “wait and see mode” with inflation trending lower and the real rate around +1.2%.
Related reading
He describes the policy asymmetry in stark terms: “Even if the oil spike temporarily pushes inflation higher, the Fed has the option to review it. At +1.2% real rate, they don’t need to push for a supply shock. In 2022, they have no choice – at -7.5% they risk a catastrophic failure.”
Kruger points to recent Fed communications that seem to be consistent with this position. John Williams said oil would affect the “near-term inflation outlook” but that stability was important: “symbol for: we won’t move if it doesn’t last,” Krueger wrote, noting that the US is less dependent on oil than in previous decades.
US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent also stated that the US “is in a very different position than when Russia attacked Ukraine.” Since the strikes began, Krueger noted, four federal officials have spoken publicly without changing their stance; Williams described the market’s reaction as “muted,” Neel Kashkari said “knowing is too fast” and still sees one to two cuts this year if inflation cools, and Hawk Bet Hammock called policy “neutral” while calling for a longer pause.
The second pillar of Kruger’s argument is that the 2026 oil breakout will be more likely to be temporary than the 2022 structural breakout. Then, Europe lost access to about 4.5 million barrels per day of Russian crude and refined products, and the sanctions effectively made the disruption permanent; Brent rose to close to $130 on March 8 and did not fall steadily below $90 until the end of August.
Related reading
This time, according to him, Iran’s own barrels are not the key variable. Iran produced about 3.3 million barrels and exported about 1.9 million barrels before the strikes, mostly to China through shadow channels at a $11-12 discount to Brent, and most of its tanker fleet is already sanctioned, meaning “additional sanctions on Iran after the war will not change anything.”
Instead, the focus of the market is the Strait of Hormuz, where about 14 million barrels are transported – about 20% of global oil liquids consumption – and where traffic is “almost at a standstill”.
Kruger says the futures line does the real thing. In 2022, the first month was about +50% and the tenth contract +29%, indicating a long-term repair work. In 2026, he estimates that the first month is up +32%, but the tenth contract is only +12%, “despite the impact of 4.4 times more barrels”, traders mean that instead of reconnecting supply chains, traders will see the end of the disruption.
The danger of the tail is the “tell” of the curve
Kruger is clear on what would make a “transitional” hit to the regime change of 2022: direct, repeated hits that take processing or LNG capacity offline for months. He wrote that Iran had already hit the Ras Tanura, Fujairah and Qatar LNG facilities, mostly with debris from intercepted drones, but he saw a form of energy infrastructure boom with “tens of thousands of drones in reserve.”
“If direct hits land on SAMREF’s processing capacity, Jebel Ali, Jubail, it’s lost production that will come back with the ceasefire. The factories will take months to repair,” he said. “And the risk is no longer limited to oil. It’s becoming a commodity and gas crisis, not just a crude problem.” Krueger added that QatarEnergy has shut down LNG production at Ras Laffan and Mesaid, eliminating about a fifth of the world’s LNG export capacity.
For Bitcoin, the approach is less about matching the pattern with the chart and more about whether the “off” macro remains reliable. Kruger’s rule is simple: if the back end of the line starts to reprice, for example, if that tenth contract moves from about +12% to +25%, the market will show that the shock is turning into a structure. “But until today,” he wrote, “the curve has not been blinked. Don’t confuse a temporary geopolitical shock (2026) with a major liquidity crisis (2022).”
At press time, Bitcoin was trading against the US dollar
Featured image created with DALL.E, chart from TradingView.com
