Economic, Middle East, Politics, Society, United States

Trump’s capriciousness is undermining international stability

GEOPOLITICS

Intro: Trump boasted he would make America great again. What bitter irony that he’s now presiding over its slow demise as a superpower

President Donald Trump has never been shy of hubris in his self-declared role as a negotiator of world peace.

When sworn into office for the second time in January last year, the 47th US President claimed he would be ushering in a new era: “My proudest legacy will be that of a peacemaker and unifier,” he proclaimed.

Just days ago, following the award of the Nobel Peace Prize to UN human rights commissioner Navanethem Pillay and his evident belief it should have gone to him, he went further: “I have saved more lives than anyone in history.”

And yet since his inauguration it has become abundantly clear this president’s most enduring legacy may well be the greatest threat to the world order for decades.

From the battlefields of Ukraine to the oil-rich Persian Gulf and volatile waters of the Red Sea, the consequences of Trump’s erratic foreign policy are being felt across the globe.

At precisely the moment when the world desperately needs calm and experienced leadership – with 130-armed conflicts raging globally – it finds itself dependent on a US president whose capricious behaviour is directly undermining international stability.

The missile attacks on Riyadh airport by Yemen’s Houthi rebels, which killed 14 people and injured hundreds more, represented a chilling and unprecedented escalation in a Middle Eastern conflict that threatens to plunge the global markets into further imminent chaos.

For those in Saudi Arabia and beyond, it remains a terrifying reality that the Houthis, an Iranian-backed militia whose fighters have often been dismissed as little more than barefoot tribesmen, now not only have the capacity to throw the Arab world’s largest economy into further turmoil but also to inflict such economic damage on the West that it could dwarf the ongoing war between America and Iran.

To date, much attention has been focused on Iran’s blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, the narrow waterway through which enormous quantities of the world’s oil and gas ordinarily pass. The disruption sent shockwaves through energy markets, caused prices to soar, and worryingly threatened supplies of fuel and fertiliser, the lifeblood of industrial and agricultural production.

Several hundred miles to the south-west, however, lies another maritime bottleneck that might yet prove even more damaging, particularly for Britain and Europe.

The Bab al-Mandab Strait, separating Yemen from the Horn of Africa, is the gateway to the Red Sea and, ultimately, the Suez Canal.

It is one of the great arteries of international commerce, carrying not only oil and liquified natural gas but container ships transporting everything from Chinese cars to Japanese electronics and white goods. If the Houthis succeed in closing this passage, the consequences could be catastrophic.

The Red Sea corridor handles roughly 30 per cent of global container traffic and, while it is one thing to pay more to fill your car, it is quite another when the supply of vehicles, fridges, washing machines, and pretty much everything else is suddenly imperilled.

This is not a theoretical threat. The Houthis have demonstrated through their attacks on Riyadh airport that they possess missiles and drones capable of penetrating defences in Saudi, a country that has spent billions on sophisticated military equipment.

And at a moment when the future of world trade has seldom looked more vulnerable, the current US president is so unpredictable we can no longer assume Washington would intervene in the Bab al-Mandab Strait to protect global commercial shipping.

While the US Navy may have done so under Joe Biden – in 2024 American carrier strike groups were deployed to counter Houthi attacks on shipping in the Red Sea, albeit ineffectively – the current US President has demonstrated an alarming unwillingness to protect anything other than American interests.

Only last month, for example, he called off a missile strike against the Houthis in return for a guarantee that attacks on US vessels in the area would not take place. And he will be fully aware that if he launches strikes, the Houthis may well attack US bases in the Middle East.

Despite his bellicose rhetoric, the truth is that President Trump looks desperately weak when confronted with the realities of international power. Supporters of Trump believed they were electing an “American First” president that would extricate them from expensive foreign entanglements, rebuild the economy, and end the military adventures of past administrations.

Instead, their erstwhile hero has achieved almost precisely the opposite. And with midterm elections fast approaching, the president is staring in the face the political consequences of his overseas adventures. With just over two weeks to go before the vote, polls show he is failing to arrest his declining popularity.

This is the primary reason why Trump decided to ease sanctions on Russian diesel, pursuing short-term political expediency at the expense of long-term international stability.

For years, Western policy towards Vladimir Putin has rested on the principle that Russia must pay an economic price for invading Ukraine.

Yet now the American President is prepared to loosen those restrictions to ease the energy crisis and attempt to bring down prices in the US.

The message this sends out is beyond appalling. While Western sanctions have never been watertight, and European countries have permitted exceptions when vital economic interests were at stake, there is a big difference between limited exemptions and the world’s most powerful democracy handing Russia a lifeline. It raises the possibility that the West’s entire strategy towards Ukraine could unravel.

At the same time, Trump continues to espouse extravagant and fantastical claims about his diplomatic achievements. Consider his announcement that there had been an energy ceasefire in the war between Russia and Ukraine, and that both parties had agreed. This was greeted with surprise in Kyiv. Relentless Russian attacks have continued.

The louder the threats and more extravagant the pronouncements, the greater the impression of a man desperately posturing while events slip beyond his control.

Together, these crises cannot be considered separately. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has disrupted our access to energy supplies from eastern Europe while the confrontation with Iran has threatened supplies from the Persian Gulf. Now the Houthi escalation threatens a crucial commercial route linking Europe to Asia. In effect we are facing a disastrous triple whammy.

While Trump blusters, Britain and France may promise further assistance to Saudi Arabia, but neither possesses the resources required to replace American power, for so long the guarantor of international security and free trade.

And herein lies perhaps the most unsettling prospect of all. It may fall to China, possibly alongside India, to broker an agreement between the Houthis, Iran and Saudi Arabia that removes the threat to international commerce.

Beijing has every reason to want this outcome, with its export economy depending on functioning trade routes. Yet their intervention would be one of the most troubling kind: what might this authoritarian state ask in return?

The erosion of America’s world leadership did not begin with Trump. But under this president it is accelerating at a terrifying pace.

The bitter irony is that the man who promised to make America great again may instead be presiding over its great dismantling as an international superpower.

Standard
Iran, Israel, Middle East, United States

The folly of boots on the ground in Iran

US-IRAN WAR

Intro: After the pain of Iraq and Afghanistan, it’s almost inconceivable the US would again send troops to the Middle East – but its president is desperate and narcissistic

Concern and anguish are justifiably growing that a cornered Donald Trump will send US ground troops into combat on Iranian soil to avoid being personally and politically humiliated in a war of attrition he started, mismanaged, and cannot end. Such a self-serving escalation, however – even if limited in scope and duration – could itself prove catastrophic for him and the American people. Think what happened in previous US-led military interventions. In sum total, he’s caught in a modern-day catch-22. Pick your own metaphor for dumb. Trump’s stumped, hoist by his own petard, stuck between a rock and a hard place, and up the creek without a paddle. The creek in question is, of course, the Strait of Hormuz.

Firmly ensconced in his strange parallel universe, Trump insists the war is all but won, Iran is suing for peace, and talks are making good progress. In the real world, Iran is still fighting on all fronts, Israel is still relentlessly bombing, the strait remains largely closed, and the Iran-allied Houthi militia in Yemen has joined the war, attacking Israel and potentially blocking Red Sea trade routes. The US and Iran have each issued maximalist demands, but there is no sign of actual negotiations. They are poles apart, further even than they were before Trump, egged on by Benjamin Netanyahu, abandoned diplomacy four weeks ago. Sometime soon, Trump will be forced to confront the huge gap between what he wants and what’s on offer. At that point he could turn to the troop buildup amassing in the Gulf and order ground attacks.

How did it come to this? It’s incredible to think that after all the mortal agony and pain of Iraq and Afghanistan, a US president is once again seriously contemplating boots on the ground in the Middle East. It’s even more amazing the president concerned is Trump, a noisy and outspoken critic of costly foreign adventures. Yet this is no unlucky break, no accidental misfortune. It’s the result of deliberate policy. If the US is facing impossible choices, the responsibility is entirely Trump’s, though he will surely blame and scapegoat others. For one, Pete Hesgeth, the Pentagon’s troubled comic-book warlord, is in his gun-sights.

Ignoring facts on the ground, the White House continues to spout lies and bombast. Trump is plainly in denial, claiming “regime change” has already been achieved with the assassination of Ayatollah Khamanei. Trump has this strange habit of behaving like a spectator, detached from the chaotic events he himself sets in motion. He acts and behaves as if the global energy shock, the US’s abject failure to defend the Hormuz strait and its Gulf allies, Iran’s unyielding defiance under fire, and the absence of the much-predicted popular uprising in Tehran, have nothing to do with him. He doesn’t understand Iran is fighting an asymmetric war, that even the biggest bombs cannot obliterate pride and ideology, faith and history.

Trump is increasingly isolated and out on a limb. His wealthy Arab business cronies no longer trust him. US bases on their territory now resemble a liability, not a defence. When he demanded NATO’s help, Europe said: we’ll let you know. Likewise, Iran’s ethnic Kurds are less than eager to die for a muppet. Support for the war among the US public and the MAGA right, always weak, is a fast-vanishing mirage. Having egged him on, Netanyahu refuses to bail him out – or to stop bombing everyone in sight. Trump believed Israel’s assurance of quick victory. As for Iran, its surviving leadership, dominated by ultras, reckons it’s winning. Its hard line gets harder by the day.

Imagine being one of the thousands of US marines and paratroopers now deploying to the Gulf. With a commander-in-chief like Trump, who needs enemies? Except plenty more lie in wait. Iran’s armed forces number 610,000 active-duty personnel, with reserves of 350,000. The regime may no longer be able to fight in the air or at sea. But on land, treading familiar terrain and ultimately willing, perhaps, to sacrifice “human waves” of troops, as in the 1980’s Iran-Iraq war, it remains a formidable foe. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) says it’s ready to carpet-bomb its own territory if invaded.

If ground attacks were to materialise – both Trump and Netanyahu have publicly discussed the possibility – the targets would most likely be the coastal batteries, missile defences, and concealed armed speedboat bases dotting the northern flank of the Hormuz strait. An attack on the Kharg oil export terminal further up the Gulf is also predicted. Ominously, Kharg is known as the Forbidden Island; it may be easier to overrun than hold. Such incursions would be intended to force the reopening of the strait, thereby easing the energy crisis, and strengthening Trump’s negotiating hand.

The inherent, inescapable military risks are daunting. Causalities would be inevitable. Even if operations went well in the short term, questions would immediately arise about potential escalation when Iran counterattacked, expansion of the operational area, and duration of the occupation. If they went badly, the cry would go up for reinforcements – a scenario grimly familiar to anyone who recalls mission-creep in Iraq and Afghanistan. More risky still, to the point of suicidal, is another floated option: sending US and Israeli special forces deep into the interior to snatch Iran’s hidden, physically volatile stockpile of highly enriched uranium.

For all his childish threats of epic fury and maximum punishment, does Trump really want to unleash this nightmare? A rational person would strive to avoid it. At one level, his desperate-sounding, fiercely disputed claims that Iran is privately “begging” for peace reflect a realisation that a bloody, open-ended land war could destroy his presidency. His problem is that Iran’s regime knows this too. So, entirely logically, it will continue to rebuff his maximalist 15-point “peace plan” – which amounts to a call for complete surrender – while upping its own demands. They include a permanent end to US-Israeli aggression, undisputed sovereignty over the Hormuz strait, financial reparations, and lifting of sanctions.

Any deal that fails to satisfy bottom-line US and Israeli demands – namely, a definitive end to Iran’s nuclear weapons and ballistic missile development programmes, a halt to Tehran’s support for allied regional militias, and guaranteed freedom of navigation in the Gulf – will be seen as a defeat for Trump. He now plainly wants to end the war but on his terms, with a deal superior to that secured by Barack Obama in 2015 (and subsequently trashed by Trump). Iran – angry, wounded, yet resilient – will not give it to him. Trump’s choice: cave or escalate.

At this dreaded juncture, what is there to say or think? This illegal war should never have been launched. Trump acted foolishly and opportunistically. Netanyahu, too, is greatly to blame. The threat was not “imminent”. And the war’s most persuasive justification – a promise to free Iranians from tyranny – has been abandoned. Negotiations, unconditional on both sides, are the only sane way out. Trump must swallow his pride, admit his error, eat humble pie. Yet, as all the world knows, the very idea that this most ignorant, reckless, and narcissistic of US leaders might actually do so is utterly ridiculous.

Not only was the second Trump presidency going to end in disaster, but the US-Iran war will be the greatest of all disasters of its foreign interventions.

Standard
Iran, Middle East, United States

Trump’s dilemma of his own making

IRAN WAR

Intro: Iran’s leaders will not be threatened into relaxing their hold on the Strait of Hormuz. The US president will have to break it for them

It cannot have been part of America’s plan that nearly four weeks into this war with Iran, Donald Trump should still be issuing furious threats and ultimatums.

By now, he must have believed that the Islamic Republic would either have been overthrown or so incapacitated by American and Israeli firepower that its surviving leaders would be imploring him for terms. The reality is closer to being the other way round. Incredibly, it is the US president who finds himself making ever more fevered demands for Iran to reopen the Strait of Hormuz.

The reason why he has landed himself in this invidious position is that his administration failed to foresee the blindingly obvious: that Iran’s regime, once backed into a corner, would retaliate by closing the Strait of Hormuz and start firing missiles at America’s allies in the Gulf. Why else would Iran have spent decades amassing the biggest arsenal of ballistic missiles in the Middle East? The commanders of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps always knew that their greatest strategic asset was the power given to them by Iran’s geography to, in extremis, wreck the global economy.

Supertankers laden with 20 per cent of the world’s seaborne oil pass every day – at least in normal times – through the Strait of Hormuz.

By attacking only a handful of these tankers, the IRGC calculated that it could sabotage global oil supplies as no one has ever sabotaged them before. That is exactly what has happened.

If Trump had possessed any foresight, he would have ordered the US navy to secure the Strait of Hormuz before the war began. That was supposed to be why the US Fifth Fleet was based in Bahrain.

Instead, before starting the war on Feb 28, Trump neglected to send any more warships than would be needed to bombard Iran and protect the two American aircraft carriers.

Now that the IRGC has closed the strait to any shipping that Iran considers hostile, the president has resorted to threatening escalation. Will Iran give way and allow free passage? That is almost inconceivable.

Will Trump have to make good on his threat to attack power stations in Iran? Given his unpredictable habit of zig-zagging from one position to another, no one can be sure. But even if he did, the IRGC would almost certainly refuse to yield. Iran would then likely act on its threat to strike power stations in “countries in the region that host American bases”. Given that the IRGC has already fired missiles at the world’s biggest gas export facility – Ras Laffan in Qatar – this cannot be excluded.

At some point, it should dawn on President Trump that the Iranian regime will not be threatened into relaxing its stranglehold on the Strait of Hormuz. Given that they will never choose to loosen their grip, Trump will have to break it for them. He will soon have to decide whether to reopen the Strait by force – a highly risky operation that would probably require troops on the ground – or endure huge economic damage. He surely never planned in having to face this dilemma.

Standard