Exploding bombs have not only effects but also side effects. Some of them are intended and predictable, others are neither.
However, one side effect of the ongoing war on Iran (what Trump calls an “excursion”) was so certain that no self-respecting bookmaker would have accepted any bets. Oil prices were sure to shoot up steeply.
Not only were Iran’s sanctioned exports going to stop altogether, but such a massive turmoil in the oil-producing region was guaranteed to affect supplies from the whole Middle East. Considering that the region produces some 30 per cent of the world’s oil, the law of supply-demand was going to come into play, and that law hasn’t yet been repealed.
Thus, when pushing the button for a massive aerial assault on Iran, Trump could be certain that oil prices would soar. The increase was bound to be sizeable because – and this was another predictable, nay certain, development – oil shipments through the Strait of Hormuz were going to come to a stop, or as near as damn.
Since, for all of Ed Miliband’s efforts, world economies are still fuelled by hydrocarbons, these economies, and people who keep them running, would suffer. Household bills would go up, living standards would move in the opposite direction, and the natives would be restless.
That much was a given. Hence plans ought to have been prepared to make up the deficit or, barring that, at least to explain to the people of the countries involved that the on-going ‘excursion’ is actually a war whose outcome is vitally important.
Trump had to be in no two minds about that because, had he thought otherwise, he shouldn’t have started the war in the first place. So what plans did he have in place to deal with public unrest over a few extra pennies on a gallon of petrol?
Simple. If Iran and the Middle East in general begin to run dry, and America’s oil production can’t replace that supply on its own, then other sources must be found. Enter Russia, the world’s third largest oil producer (and second-largest producer of gas) extracting more than twice as much black stuff as Iran does.
There is a slight catch though. Following its brutal aggression against the Ukraine, Putin’s regime is the world’s pariah. Sanctions imposed by civilised countries have limited recipients of Russian hydrocarbons to China, India and, on a smaller scale, Hungary.
And Putin himself is an indicted war criminal, the pariah dictator of a pariah country in the eyes of the world. Not necessarily in Trump’s eyes though.
His view of Russia and her aggression against the Ukraine is demonstrably different from the rest of the civilised world. He sees the war as strictly a local conflict, one of no significance for the US and hence for anyone other than the Ukraine, full stop.
Trump will keep up appearances, express his regrets about such violence, but he does mean it when he calls Putin his friend. Also a role model, I dare say: Trump would dearly love to govern the way Putin does and bitterly regrets being unable to do so.
While paying lip service to the Ukraine’s independence and maintaining some limited support for her valiant defence, Trump has been looking for ways to bring his friend Vlad in from the cold. In that spirit, he issued an invitation for Putin to join Trump’s ridiculous Board of Peace, thereby offering him a seat at a table that ought to be off-limits for dictators waging brutal wars of aggression. Some peace.
It’s against this background that Trump’s phone call to Putin must be viewed. Yesterday the president of a country regarded as the leader of the free world sought advice on Iran from a KGB thug presenting a great threat to freedom everywhere, not just in his neck of the woods.
“I had a very good call with President Putin,” Trump told a press conference.” Good for whom exactly? Funny you should ask, but Trump was ready for trick questions:
“We’re also waiving certain oil-related sanctions to reduce prices. So we have sanctions on some countries. We’re going to take those sanctions off until this straightens out,” he said.
Which countries would they be, Mr President? Cuba? North Korea? Syria? Don’t interrupt the president when he is in full flow. Let him go on:
“Then who knows, maybe we won’t have to put them on; there’ll be so much peace. But when the time comes, the US Navy and its partners will escort tankers through the Strait if needed.” No doubt. But what does Putin have to do with that? Does the US Navy need his permission to do its job?
Actually, Trump’s use of the future tense is a bit coy. Last week, the US already put in force a ‘temporary’ waiver on India’s purchases of Russian oil. And yes, my quotation marks around ‘temporary’ communicate a certainty that the waiver will remain come what may.
Not only that, but Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said the US could free even more Russian oil from sanctions – meaning all sanctions will be removed regardless of how the war in the Ukraine is going. Hence Trump is ready to remove any link between sanctions and the war that caused them in the first place.
If Russia is allowed an unimpeded access to the oil markets, and hydrocarbons are her principal source of revenue, Putin’s regime will get steroid injections enabling it to intensify and expand its aggression. Trump is clearly not bothered by that: it’s only America’s allies who will be on the receiving end, not the US of A.
As long as there’s enough cheap petrol for Americans, why not let a fascist regime get away with mass murder? It’s not Americans who are being killed after all.
In parallel, Trump has hinted at a possibility that I’ve feared all along. He seems to be ready to declare victory in his ‘excursion’ and go home, leaving Iran’s evil regime in place and more rabid than ever. Moreover, it’s now led by a man who lost half his family to American missiles – how likely do you think he’ll be to talk peace?
Putin’s regime will be de facto decriminalised and join forces with China to rebuild Iran’s industry and re-tune her war machine. That may take a few years, and Russia too may need some time to roll over the Ukraine, then to catch her breath before the next round. But that will be the next US president’s headache, not Trump’s.
Some of what I’ve written is conjecture, which would be unnecessary had Trump stated unequivocally what the strategic objectives are, what would constitute victory, what long-term prospects are in store for the world. Yet none of this information was offered.
Instead the president comes across as erratic and solipsistic as he is on most other subjects. It’s all down to him: he will decide when it’s time to declare victory in Iran, and he’ll decide what constitutes a victory. He’ll decide whether or not Putin should remain in the cold. And if he decides to swap the Ukraine for Russian oil, then he’ll do so.
The picture emerging out of this mess seems gloomy, and I hope I’m wrong. However, this scenario is far from being implausible, I’m afraid. Very afraid.