Dalio’s latest comments about moving away from US bonds should not be viewed merely as investment advice. Their significance lies above all in the stature of the person making them: a figure who built much of his reputation by analyzing debt cycles and the behavior of major economies, and who is now warning investors about holding US bonds as the war with Iran intensifies inflationary and fiscal pressures.

In his latest remarks, Dalio recommended reducing exposure to bonds and holding gold and some Bitcoin as a hedge against risk. He also warned that a US debt crisis could draw closer in the coming years. The significance of his position is that it moves the issue beyond the level of “high US government debt” to a more sensitive question: confidence in US Treasury bonds as one of the world’s most important financial assets.

This warning does not, by itself, mean the bond market is entering a collapse. But psychologically, it could be significant. The debt market becomes vulnerable to a serious shock when investors’ concerns shift from the “size of the debt” to the government’s “ability and willingness to manage it” and, ultimately, to collective selling behavior. Under such circumstances, increased bond supply can push yields higher; higher yields raise the government’s interest costs, while rising interest costs widen deficits and increase the need for further borrowing.

The main danger is the emergence of a self-reinforcing cycle: more debt, more bond issuance, higher yields, heavier interest costs and then a greater need for borrowing. If major investors simultaneously begin reducing their exposure to bonds, the issue is no longer merely a budgetary variable; it becomes a question of confidence and market behavior.

This is where the stock market can also enter the equation. Higher bond yields raise the cost of capital for companies and reduce the relative attractiveness of equities. A shock in the bond market could therefore spread to stocks if the right market psychology takes hold. The risk of a rush to sell is precisely the point that could become the Achilles’ heel of US resilience, particularly while the country is engaged in a war with Iran.

The warning becomes more significant when viewed alongside the pressures that have accumulated across the US economy in recent months. The war with Iran has not only imposed military costs on Washington; through energy, inflation and production costs, it has also put pressure on the resilience of the US economy.

The most important example is diesel. The energy crisis caused by the war has put greater pressure on refined products than on the crude oil market. Reuters recently reported that US diesel refining margins had surpassed $100 a barrel for the first time, reaching a record $102.20. Reduced global supplies of refined products, disruptions to exports from the Middle East and Russia, and increased seasonal demand from the agricultural sector have contributed to the surge.

This matters because diesel is not merely a vehicle fuel; it is fuel for the real economy. Trucks, tractors, combines, mining equipment and a large part of industry and the distribution chain depend on it. More expensive diesel therefore directly translates into higher transportation, agricultural, production and distribution costs.

Reuters has also warned that the energy crisis caused by the war with Iran is linked less to a simple shortage of crude oil than to disruptions in refining capacity and refined-product supplies, and that a sharp rise in fuel prices could keep inflationary pressures elevated for longer.

Alongside energy, pressure on the consumer basket has also become a political issue. Trump has proposed importing 300,000 tons of meat at lower tariffs for a 90-day period in an effort to reduce ground beef prices. The move itself is a sign of the administration’s sensitivity to the cost of living and inflationary pressures ahead of the midterm elections.

Thus, “ground beef” and “diesel” are two ends of the same chain: one is directly visible in a voter’s shopping basket, while the other affects the hidden costs of producing and distributing goods. Trump can use imports to temporarily reduce the price of a particular commodity, but maintaining control over energy costs, inflation and interest rates is far more difficult.

It is at this point that the war with Iran becomes a real test of US resilience. Resilience is not simply a matter of military strength or weapons-production capacity; the economy’s ability to absorb the combined burden of war costs, expensive energy, inflation, budget deficits, heavy debt and high interest rates is also part of it.

Six months after the start of the war, a Reuters report identified volatility in the US bond market and intensifying energy inflation as two major concerns for global markets. At the same time, Wall Street has faced pressure in recent days as bond yields have risen.

Under these circumstances, Dalio’s comments should be viewed as a warning signal — not because a bond-market collapse has begun, but because one of the best-known analysts of debt cycles is now telling investors to prepare for a scenario in which US bonds become less attractive.

That warning, alongside mounting pressures ranging from energy to food, presents Washington with a broader picture: a war that was supposed to test Iran’s resilience has itself become one of the factors testing US economic resilience.

For now, Trump faces a common problem stretching from ground beef to diesel, and from inflation to the bond market: the cost of war is no longer being measured solely on the battlefield.

And perhaps the most important question is this: if the market moves from “concern about debt” to “fear of holding debt,” will the US economy be able to withstand the next wave of pressure?

At that point, the issue is no longer simply $40 trillion in debt; it is confidence in the world’s most important financial asset.