Due to the incompetence with which the Trump administration has tried to impose tariffs, the World economy is somewhat shaky at the moment, and can probably do without any more shocks for a time.
Such a shock would be a war against Iran. This is not unlikely, as the Trump administration seems to be characterised by dumb leadership, but it would certainly be a mistake.
Such a shock would be a war against Iran. This is not unlikely, as the Trump administration seems to be characterised by dumb leadership, but it would certainly be a mistake.
The reason for this is that any war with Iran would essentially be "unprovoked." Sure, you can always find "bad things" that any country has done, but to the wider World, Iran is relatively "innocent" and certainly hasn't done anything to justify an attack by a superpower.
Because of the "unprovoked" nature of any such an attack, America would go into the war morally weak and without allies (except for Israel, of course), and this would strengthen resistance and undercut resolve, leading to a situation without any clear result.
The effect of this, however, would be to create a toxic situation right at the point where around 20 to 30% of the world's oil supply sails out into the World. An unresolved war in Iran would effectively close this off for months, leading to a spike in oil prices on a par with the 1970s "Oil Shock" when OPEC embargoed countries supporting Israel during the Yom Kippur War. Back then that quadrupled the price of oil.
We have already seen a "practice run" of this kind of situation with the Houthis in Yemen and their ability to cause serious disruption to sea traffic in the Red Sea. Only a full invasion and occupation, or else a successful proxy war that placed a more compliant regime in power, can end this threat. Both of these seem a lot less likely than solving the problem by just doing a deal with the Houthis.
But a similar situation with Iran and the Straits of Hormuz would be 20 to 100 times worse.
Off the top of my head, Iran is around 10 times bigger than the Houthi-controlled territory, while the Straits of Hormuz are at least twice as important as the Red Sea.
While there are alternative routes for shipping companies to avoid the Red Sea, there is no significant alternative for the 20 to 30% of the world's oil supply sails that passes through the Straits of Hormuz.
Off the top of my head, Iran is around 10 times bigger than the Houthi-controlled territory, while the Straits of Hormuz are at least twice as important as the Red Sea.
While there are alternative routes for shipping companies to avoid the Red Sea, there is no significant alternative for the 20 to 30% of the world's oil supply sails that passes through the Straits of Hormuz.
The key to fighting successful wars is having a clear end point and reaching it as effectively as possible. The Trump administration might decide that it has this in simply bombing the crap out of Iran's nuclear facilities. But that would only be a clean endpoint if the Iranians agreed with them.
Much more likely, the Iranian government would wish to cause some pain in return and interrupting the global oil supply would be the easiest way to do this. Also, Russian support for this would not be lacking, as $300 for a barrel of Russian crude oil would be an economic lifeline to the Putin regime.
Much more likely, the Iranian government would wish to cause some pain in return and interrupting the global oil supply would be the easiest way to do this. Also, Russian support for this would not be lacking, as $300 for a barrel of Russian crude oil would be an economic lifeline to the Putin regime.
Trump clearly has major obligations to his Zionist backers and wants to deliver results on weakening Iranian power, so the prospect of attacking Iran will continue to appeal to him. The problem is that without a clear endpoint any action against Iran is just going to add more to the global mess that Trump has already made with his unhinged tariffs.
While there remains a valid case for much of what Trump is attempting, the way in which he has set about his agenda is simply undermining it; while depressing support for the kind radical and populist solutions that many were drawn to out of a sense of frustration with mainstream politics.
____________________
Colin Liddell is the Chief Editor of Neokrat and the author of Interviews & Obituaries, a collection of encounters with the dead and the famous. Support his work by buying his book here (USA), here (UK), and here (Australia), or by taking out a paid subscription on his Substack.
Follow on Twitter and Bluesky
Follow on Twitter and Bluesky
No comments:
Post a Comment
All Comments MUST include a name (either real or sock). Also don't give us an easy excuse to ignore your brilliant comment by using "shitposty" language.