Barring some extreme weather events (which generally don't occur in that part of the world), weather is a complete non-factor when it comes to putative US airstrikes against Iran.
You can sometimes tie these big dips in crypto to governments liquidating assets to fiat. “Time to spend some money, we going to war.”
I would say that view is incorrect for several reasons:
The United States has over 100,000 BTC in its reserve. There’s a country in Africa that has BTC as a legitimate currency. China is the largest BTC miner. I’m sorry but to state that major governments do not hold crypto is categorically incorrect.
Actually, the US holds over 200,000 BTC, worth approximately 17 billion USD by today's prices. It's not a "reserve" - rather, it's seized cash from criminal activities; primarily the following:
No, I did not; you misread what I wrote. I made no statement regarding the likelihood of a US/Iran war (in fact, I regard it as likely). I only claim BTC prices are a piss poor indicator of potential military conflicts. As for gold, it has indeed been trending upward - and that's a much more ominous sign.
They aren't just going for nuclear facilities I feel like.
<SELF-SNIP: revised post below, polished the poor grammar.
>Deploying several strike groups and confirming the movement of five B-2 bombers suggests a posture beyond limited strikes. Military planning always considers worst-case scenarios, and while the primary goal may be to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities, the presence of such powerful assets indicates readiness for escalation if Iran retaliates aggressively.
This treaty essentially ties Iran and Russia into a formal military partnership one that now complicates any U.S. or Israeli action against Iranian nuclear sites. 
What exactly does it say regarding that? Russia is probably phrasing things so they aren't obligated to get tangled up in something they don't want to be.
Are you coming from the assumption that Russia is too bogged down in Ukraine to engage in another confrontation? Which that doesn't fully take into account or reflect the flexibility of their military capabilities. Russia hasn't been using its most advanced stockpiles in Ukraine and has been relying on older technology. That could mean they still have considerable reserves of modern weaponry and resources to deploy elsewhere if necessary.
Russia and Iran both share interests in countering U.S. and Western influence, and the alliance could provide both nations with a level of security in the event of a confrontation. The treaty is not purely symbolic, it is a shift in power dynamics that will likely have consequences, especially considering how both countries are positioning themselves in the broader geopolitical landscape.
More from the position that Russia doesn't really care about Iran. They're just useful to poke the West with.
My point is that Russia can make attacking Iran a very fluid, dangerous, and complicated situation. Even without intending to directly intervene militarily, things can go sideways quickly, escalating into a broader conflict regardless of everyone's "intentions."
To be frank, I feel like you both might be forgetting about a certain chubby man in Korea who would see much benefit in sending munitions and cannon fodder to Iran in the case of war, in exchange for high tech from Russia... The Russians don't care about the Iranians in the sense that they don't care how many die, but they definitely don't want to see regime change in the country. IMO a potential war between Iran and USA might not be supported by the regional allies you would think. It is also in Chinas best interest to see the status quo stay the same in the region. I definitely wouldn't rule out Chinese support for Iran in a prospective invasion of Iran, not directly of course but in whatever way they see fit. However the likelyhood of a full scale conflict between the USA and Iran is still very low.
You would be right if this were going to be a ground-based or land-based war, much like Ukraine. However, attacking Iranian nuclear facilities and the potential for broader escalation would require more advanced weaponry something North Korea neither has nor can provide. Only Russia has the capability and willingness to supply Iran with such modern, advanced weaponry. In fact, it’s likely that Russia has already provided Iran with enough to pose a credible threat to Western forces or will do so if the situation escalates. Russia’s interest in preventing regime change in Iran, combined with its formal alliance with Tehran, makes it far more likely that Moscow would step in to complicate any U.S. or Israeli operation.
Not saying North Korea can't help in a prolonged ground conflict. But that's not what we are facing. No one wants to invade Iran. So Iran simply needs advanced or modern ballistic missiles in quantity and other modern systems. North Korea has some, but not enough to supply Iran in the manner you speak of. Where as Russia can. Which is why it's been my main focus of a catalyst.
Also, shipments from North Korea would likely be shipped via boat and would likely be stopped before arriving to Iran. That is if things really went sideways in the M.E.
