Don Trump and the Mafioso Style in World Politics

Don Trump and the Mafioso Style in World Politics

Trump’s style in world politics looks very much like a mafioso’s conduct on the global arena. 

Don Trump and the Mafioso Style in World Politics

Gilbert Achcar

3/18/2026

 

reprinted from Gilbert Achar's Blog

By a remarkable historical coincidence, the name of the present US president can intuitively be abridged as Don, which is the equivalent of Sir or Lord, historically used in Sicily in designating powerful landowners and later applied to Mafia bosses. This designation became widely known in the United States and globally with Francis Ford Coppola’s film series The Godfather, featuring Marlon Brando and Robert De Niro in the role of Don Corleone.

The fact is that Donald Trump’s style in world politics looks very much like a mafioso’s conduct on the global arena. Here are some of the Mafia methods applied by Don Trump on the world scene:

 

1. Extortion and racketeering: That’s the most common method practiced by the Mafia.

 

Don Trump’s use of tariffs is the exact equivalent of the mafiosi’s practice of racketeering. He has shaken down several countries in forcing them to pledge an increase of their imports from and investment into the United States, along with other concessions. He has been consistently and persistently threatening other countries with tariffs in seeking to impose his will, be it for commercial purposes or even political purposes, such as trying to bail out from jail his fellow neofascist, Brazilian ex-president Jair Bolsonaro. Since tariffs are eventually paid by the US consumer, Don Trump’s use of tariffs is also a way of extorting money from the American people – a sort of regressive tax – in order to fund the considerable deficit resulting from the combination of his huge tax gifts to the rich with ever increasing military expenditure.

 

Another element of racketeering is extortion as a prize for extending protection. This is very typically the way in which the United States has been taking advantage of the Gulf oil monarchies, extracting all sorts of profits from them in exchange for providing them with military protection against neighboring Iran and its regional allies, such as the Houthis in North Yemen. Don Trump’s ongoing onslaught on Iran is the culmination of the fulfilment of the US role as protector of the Gulf monarchies, starting with the richest of them, the Saudi kingdom.

 

2. Violence, Intimidation and Outsourcing:

To be sure, Don Trump’s practice of extortion is not restricted to economic coercion. He has also plainly used the threat of violence in exerting pressure on various countries – including US allies such as NATO member Denmark that he tried to intimidate into handing the United States control over Greenland. Most importantly, Don Trump did resort to violence in imposing Washington’s will on other states.

Unlike previous US presidents, he makes no pretense of promoting democracy worldwide: that’s certainly not part of the mafioso worldview. Instead, he seeks to coerce into submission to Washington’s will and interests refractory regimes as they stand. This is what he has done in Venezuela, abducting the country’s president in typical mafiosi fashion and forcing its government to collaborate with the United States on Washington’s terms. He is strangulating Cuba in seeking to force the island to relinquish its political independence. Don Trump is presently busy bombarding Iran in trying to compel this country’s regime to abide by his will. The present onslaught started with a “kiss of death” by the Don, marking Iran’s Supreme Leader for execution. In typical Mafia custom, he outsourced this assassination to a lesser criminal group, the Israeli governmental mafia headed by Benjamin Netanyahu, and associated them as a junior partner in his war.

 

3. Hierarchical Families or Clans: Don Trump’s reigns over a whole set of underbosses and consiglieri (advisers).

 

On top, the Trump family is the equivalent of the Corleone clan headed by the Don as Godfather. His sons run the Trump Organization, whose name befits well Mafia-like practices. They have been massively profiting from the Don’s extortionary methods, making juicy business deals with foreign mafias – the Gulf oil monarchies in particular – and have engaged, as well as the Don himself, in gambling, which is another typical activity of the Mafia – most prominently in the field of cryptocurrencies.

 

It is well-known that Don Trump had significant interests in the gambling business from the 1980s to the 2000s, through the development, ownership, and operation of multiple casinos in Atlantic City and other locations. His gaming ventures were characterized by high-profile ownership, immense debt, and multiple bankruptcies, while he remained in management roles. Despite the failure of his gambling businesses to turn a profit, Trump benefited through high-interest junk bonds, taking cash upfront for construction, management fees, and using company funds for personal expenditures like his yacht (the “Trump Princess”).

 

The Kushners and Witkoffs are the most prominent underbosses’ families, fully benefitting from the Don’s mafioso methods. Then there are the Dons of the Tech Mafias, who have endorsed Don Trump – particularly the two Dons of the former PayPal Mafia, Peter Thiel and Elon Musk. Their alliance with Don Trump is embodied by JD Vance who was groomed by Thiel and strongly recommended to Trump as vice-president, with a view to getting him to be the next MAGA candidate to the White House. As for Don Trump’s consiglieri, they are many, but the most sinister among them, far and away, is certainly Stephen Miller

In sum, there has never been a time before Don Trump when a president has so closely matched the mafioso pattern at the White House. Richard Nixon was almost an altar boy in comparison. Don Trump represents the triumph of the mafioso style in American and global politics. And like in the famous bookthat inspired the title of this article, Trump’s style is deeply paranoid indeed, involving a typically irrational strain in political discourse characterized by extravagant exaggeration, conspiracy theories, and trumped-up charges hurled at all rivals – a type of paranoia very much befitting a Mafia Don.

 

Opinion: It appears Mossad has activated "Iranian sleeper cells" to pull Europe into war

Originally published by Council Estate Media

Possible Iran Link say UK police. Source.  * Image not with original post.

It appears Mossad has activated "Iranian sleeper cells" to pull Europe into war

Just as things start getting desperate for Israel, we are led to believe that Iran has done the one thing that might give Israel a chance of winning this war: launch attacks on Europe.

Overnight, a new terrorist organisation has cropped up called Harakat Ashab al-Yamin al-Islamiyya (HAYI), which roughly translates to the “Islamic Movement of the People of the Right Hand”. The group has claimed responsibility for targeting Jewish institutions and communities in Belgium, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom in a series of attacks that Israel has spent months telling us were coming… 

We are now told by security experts who knew nothing about this group until yesterday that the IRGC Quds Force is likely behind it (due to logo similarities). Israel’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Diaspora Affairs Minister Amichai Chikli have described HAYI as “a jihadi group tied to an Iranian proxy”. However, all might not be as it seems: linguistic errors in Arabic materials and inconsistencies in online accounts suggest this group was hastily cobbled together. 

Laughably, the word “Arabic” is misspelt on the inscription beneath the logo in the group’s branded material, and the name of the group’s Arabic channel is misspelt in Arabic. Videos and text that the group have released are filled with Arabic grammatical, spelling, and phrasing mistakes—the likes of which you would expect from someone who doesn’t speak the language.

Ask yourself why an Islamic terror group would make such basic Arabic linguistic errors. Does that not strike you as weird? Muslims take their language and faith so seriously that many learn the Qu’ran word for word, but they can’t spell Arabic on their logos? HAYI had no public footprint before 9 March 2026, but now we’re supposed to accept everything we’re told about them at face value—and be afraid of Iran.

Attacking Jewish groups across Europe offers Iran no strategic value, but it does offer Israel propaganda value. We are talking minor property damage and minimal casualties—the type of attacks that drive a narrative that Jews are under attack and westerners must come to their rescue. Why would Iran expend resources doing such a thing?

Let’s take a closer look at those attacks:

• On 9 March, an IED caused minimal structural damage and no injuries outside a synagogue in Liège, Belgium. 

• On 13 March, an arson attack damaged a synagogue in Rotterdam, causing no injuries. 

• On March 14, an IED caused property damage at a Jewish school in Amsterdam, causing no injuries. 

• On 16 March, a blast caused minor property damage at a commercial centre in Amsterdam, but again no injuries. 

Don’t get me wrong, I’m certainly glad these attacks are not hurting or killing anyone, but this doesn’t exactly fit the pattern of terrorism, does it?

We’ve just seen an attack on four Jewish ambulances in London and I think everyone’s first reaction was “Wait, we have Jewish ambulances in London?” Anyways, it turns out that funding for replacing two ambulances had been secured weeks before the attack through charitable trusts, and now the prime minister is saying he will replace all four. I’m unclear why we are paying for Jewish ambulances when the NHS has a shortage, but here we are…

As far as I know, the only damage, aside from the burnt ambulances, was a few shattered windows. Police are treating this as an antisemitic hate crime, and assessing the possible Iran link, but not the Israel link. It seems they want to push a narrative rather than assess all possibilities—and while you could argue I am doing the same, I would argue my hypothesis is a damn sight more plausible than theirs. Israel has a history of false flags and a motive to carry out more: it is losing this war and needs help.

If you want to know who is likely behind these attacks, just look at who is talking about them. The Iranians certainly aren’t—they haven’t said a word—but the Israelis won’t shut up! Attacks like this are designed to shape the public consciousness and you don’t achieve that through silence.

The Israeli Diaspora Affairs and Combating Antisemitism Minister Amichai Chikli is pushing the narrative hard:

“The recent events in Europe are not isolated incidents but part of a disturbing pattern of action: Terrorist networks affiliated with the Iranian axis are trying to expand their arena of operation into the cities and Jewish communities of Europe. The message must be clear – Jewish communities are not a legitimate target for threats, and the international community must act resolutely against any entity that attempts to export terrorism and antisemitism beyond the borders of the Middle East.”

It’s been exhausting watching our politicians condemn this recent “outbreak of antisemitism” and pander to Israel when we all know Israel is behind this group, just like it is behind Al Qaida and ISIS: two organisations that conveniently never attack Israel. We are told it’s antisemitic to accuse Israel (a country engaging in both genocide and an illegal war of aggression), but strangely it is not racist to accuse their victim Iran.

It’s important that we start calling out these false flags, otherwise they will only escalate. We have just seen a massive fire at a US oil refinery in Port Arthur, Texas and we don’t know the facts yet, but I struggle to believe this was an accident, given the timing. Could this be the excuse they need for boots on the ground?

Ken Klippenstein. Leaked Document: Iran War Meets Little Brother

Leaked Document: Iran War Meets Little Brother

Info about the war is being censored — with the help of private companies

Ken Klippenstein March 24

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth poses next to Jeff Bezos

For more leaked documents (and to support my work obtaining them), please become a paid subscriber

Subscribed

The Pentagon has quietly dictated to spy satellite companies what to say about the Iran war, exercising censorship over what the American public is allowed to know.

Military sources tell me that the level of secrecy surrounding the specifics of the Iran war is unprecedented, with barely any data being released about the level of bombing, the targets being attacked, or the assessed effects. Now the Trump administration is trying to further control what private companies say in a behind-the-scenes effort not been previously reported.

As the American and Israeli bombing of Iran commenced on February 28, the military promptly issued guidance to satellite operators of what “language and terms to avoid” when describing Iranian damage caused at American bases in the Middle East, according to a copy of the guidance leaked to me.

“Avoid language that implies battle damage assessment (BDA) or operational conclusions,” one slide produced by U.S. Space Force says. It goes on to warn against using phrases like “Target destroyed,” “Target eliminated,” and “Structure rendered inoperable.” 

The guidance includes the following examples of what to say and what not to say.

Incorrect Example: “Strike successfully destroyed the facility.”

Correct Example: “Imagery shows the structure largely collapsed with debris covering the building footprint.”

Leaked Space Force guidance

About 100 American companies are licensed by the U.S. government to operate their own reconnaissance satellites, a $6-7 billion a year industry that serves military and commercial customers with everything from methane detection to bomb damage assessments. Most of the revenue of these companies comes from the military services and the federal government. The “big four” — Maxar Intelligence, Planet Labs, BlackSky Technology, and Spire Global — operate some 350 imaging and interception satellites.

While the Pentagon “guidance” to the commercial companies is framed as an advisory, the companies comply because their contracting relationships with the government make them afraid to bite the hand that feeds them. As a result, private companies are increasingly becoming a controlled and auxiliary Little Brother to the U.S. intelligence machine, a trend I reported on last year.

Space Force has issued the guidance I obtained to virtually all commercial satellite companies in the form of written requests, sources say. This includes not just companies in the classified space but even those that work on the collection and dissemination of public or “open source” materials that inform the news media, academia, think tanks, and other groups.

“While there’s a case to be made that they [the companies] should fight it, almost everyone makes the vast majority of their revenue from government contracts in this industry and after Anthropic, nobody is interested in putting up a fight,” a source familiar with the guidance told me. “I think it’s also another layer of trying to make things [about the war] seem less bad than they are.”

Since February, Anthropic has refused to allow its AI model, Claude, to be used for certain missions involving mass domestic surveillance and autonomous weapons. The Pentagon in response has threatened to invoke the Defense Production Act to force the company’s cooperation.

Pentagon pressure has already yielded results.

Planet Labs, one of the largest commercial satellite imaging companies in the world, has blocked public access to high-resolution imagery of the entire Iran war theater by imposing a 96-hour delay on February 28, then extending it to a 14-day blackout on March 10. The company claims the decision was its own, made after consulting military and intelligence experts. 

This kind of soft censorship is not unique to the Trump administration, nor is it a partisan phenomenon. When I first reported on the rise of Little Brother as articulated in a little-noticed intelligence community directive on coordinating with “Non-State Entities,” it was Biden’s Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines who signed it. 

The directive ordered spy agencies to “routinize” and “expand” their partnerships with private companies, and even authorized these relationships in cases of greater “risk” to the government due to security or legal concerns.

Whether it is in artificial intelligence, cyber security, unmanned vehicles, and now remote sensing by satellites, corporations have grown so powerful that they are starting to rival nation states in terms of resources. But Little Brother is happy to cooperate with Big Brother.

Sources: Market caps from Motley Fool (data as of March 23, 2026, citing company earnings filings); GDP figures from IMF World Economic Outlook.

Subscribe for news that wasn’t cleared by the Pentagon 

Technofeudalism: What It Is and What It Is Not.

Richard Mellor

 

I’ve seen the term technofeudalism and it did seem odd to me, not unlike those people who long for a return to the slower pace of life before the capitalist mode of production came to dominate. 

 

Michael Roberts and his two guests who have written an as yet unpublished paper on the subject, provide us with an excellent introduction to the term; what it means and why it is flawed.  They reject the argument of its supporters that given the power of the tech giants capitalism as we know it, is dead. In one sense it is a reactionary view in that it undermines the importance of class struggle.

 

It’s a very good, short introduction to an aspect of Marxian economics that most workers who are interested in this subject can grasp, which will encourage further forage in to a subject that too often is presented in such a dry academic way that most of us give up on it. 

 

 

IS THE U.S.-ISRAELI WAR ON IRAN A STRATEGIC MOVE AGAINST CHINA?

IS THE U.S.-ISRAELI WAR ON IRAN A STRATEGIC MOVE AGAINST CHINA? - ANALYSIS

China condemns Khamenei’s killing as analysts warn US escalation against Iran reflects a broader confrontation with Beijing. 

 

By Palestine Chronicle Editors

March 2 2016

 

BEIJING’S SHARP REBUKE

 

China has “strongly condemned” the killing of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in US–Israeli airstrikes, calling it “a grave violation of Iran’s sovereignty and security.”

 

In an official statement, Beijing urged “an immediate stop to military operations” and warned against further escalation in the Middle East. The language was deliberate: sovereignty, stability, de-escalation. China framed the assassination not merely as a regional incident, but as a destabilizing act with global consequences.

 

The statement comes at a sensitive diplomatic moment. US President Donald Trump is scheduled to meet Chinese President Xi Jinping later this month in Beijing — a meeting now overshadowed by a rapidly expanding regional war.

 

China’s response reflects more than solidarity with Iran. It signals concern that Washington’s latest military intervention could destabilize energy routes and political alignments central to Beijing’s long-term strategic planning.

 

A FRENCH WARNING: “TRUMP HITS IRAN TO CHOKE CHINA”

 

The geopolitical framing was sharpened further in Europe. Jean-Luc Mélenchon, leader of France’s left-wing party La France Insoumise, accused Washington of igniting wars to preserve its global dominance — and specifically to block China’s access to energy.

 

Speaking at a rally in Perpignan ahead of municipal elections, Mélenchon argued that the war on Iran is part of a broader US strategy aimed at “cutting oil supply lines to China.”

 

According to Mélenchon, the United States has lost its uncontested global leadership and is now methodically preparing for confrontation with Beijing by weaponizing energy corridors and strategic chokepoints.

 

He linked the current war to a wider pattern of what he described as imperial overreach: threats to retake control of the Panama Canal, pressure on Canada over Arctic security, proposals to acquire Greenland, and escalating tensions over maritime trade routes.

 

In this reading, Iran is not simply a regional adversary. It is part of the larger map of US–China rivalry.

 

CHINA AT THE CENTRE OF U.S. POLICY

 

Whether openly acknowledged or not, much of Washington’s Middle East policy can be understood through the prism of competition with China.

 

This is not new. The 2003 invasion of Iraq was widely justified through weapons-of-mass-destruction claims, but strategic analysts at the time openly discussed energy dominance and denying emerging powers secure access to Gulf oil. The assumption was simple: control the oil, shape global power.

 

That assumption proved flawed. China did not retreat from the region. It expanded. Beijing deepened energy partnerships, invested in infrastructure under the Belt and Road Initiative, and strengthened diplomatic ties with Gulf states — including US allies.

 

Rather than isolating China, US military entanglement created space for Beijing’s quieter, investment-driven strategy. Today, the pattern appears to be repeating itself.

 

WAR VERSUS STABILITY

 

The United States operates through forward deployment, military alliances, sanctions regimes, and coercive pressure. Its readiness for war is constant. Its readiness for stability is less evident.

 

China’s model is different. Beijing rarely deploys troops abroad. It does not anchor its strategy in regime change or air campaigns. Instead, it builds ports, funds railways, signs long-term energy contracts, and avoids overt political interference. Its power accumulates through infrastructure and economic interdependence rather than shock-and-awe interventions.

 

This distinction matters. When Washington escalates militarily in the Middle East, it disrupts energy markets, destabilizes governments, and creates uncertainty. China, by contrast, positions itself as the actor calling for calm, sovereignty, and non-interference. The more instability spreads, the more China appears as the stable alternative.

 

FIGHTING ISRAEL’S WAR?

 

Another layer complicates Washington’s posture. Critics argue that the United States is not only confronting Iran as a geopolitical rival but also advancing Israel’s regional objective of dominance.

 

Israel’s strategic doctrine prioritizes overwhelming military superiority and the neutralization of perceived threats. Its emphasis is deterrence through force, not necessarily regional economic integration or political stability.

 

If Washington aligns itself fully with this doctrine, it risks being drawn into perpetual confrontation rather than long-term stabilization. And prolonged instability does not weaken China — it weakens American credibility.

 

THE ENERGY EQUATION

 

Iran sits at one of the world’s most critical energy corridors: the Strait of Hormuz. Roughly a fifth of the global oil supply transits this narrow waterway. China is the largest importer of Gulf energy. If the US goal is to pressure Beijing by destabilizing Iranian influence, the calculation assumes Washington can control escalation and maintain dominance over energy flows.

 

History suggests otherwise. The United States has struggled to control outcomes in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, and Libya. Military superiority has not translated into political mastery. Each intervention has produced unintended consequences. Each has eroded US authority while pushing regional actors to diversify partnerships — often toward China.

 

THE PARADOX OF AMERICAN POWER

 

There is a deeper paradox at play. The United States remains unmatched in conventional military power. But its repeated reliance on force has often accelerated the very shifts it seeks to prevent.

 

China does not need to win wars in the Middle East. It needs only to avoid losing stability. While Washington invests in aircraft carriers and air campaigns, Beijing signs energy contracts and builds ports in the Gulf.

 

The US is perpetually prepared for war. China is perpetually preparing for the post-war order.

 

WILL THIS STRATEGY SUCCEED?

 

Mélenchon’s accusation — that Washington is striking Iran to suffocate China’s energy lifelines — may overstate coordination, but it captures an underlying truth: every major US move in the Middle East now unfolds against the backdrop of US–China rivalry.

 

Yet history offers a cautionary lesson. The United States has repeatedly attempted to reshape the Middle East through force. Each time, it underestimated local dynamics, overestimated its capacity to dictate outcomes, and inadvertently strengthened alternative powers.

 

If the goal is to weaken China’s strategic position, escalation may instead accelerate Beijing’s rise.

 

China’s influence grows not because it conquers territory, but because it offers trade, infrastructure, and non-interference to states weary of war. And the longer instability defines American engagement, the more appealing that alternative becomes.

 

A BROADER CONTEST

 

The war on Iran is not only a regional confrontation. It is part of a broader contest over how power is exercised in the 21st century: through coercion or connectivity, through dominance or development.

 

Washington believes it can shape the Middle East through decisive force. Beijing believes it can shape it through patient integration. If history is any guide, attempts to control the flow of history in the region through war have consistently failed.

 

In trying once again, the United States may find that its greatest strategic competitor is empowered not by victory, but by American overreach itself.

 

This article is shared from The Palestine Chronicle: https://www.palestinechronicle.com/is-the-us-israeli-war.../? 

Trump’s forever war – and no ‘off ramp’ in sight. View from the UK.

Republished from the UK socialist website Left Horizons

Trump’s forever war – and no ‘off ramp’ in sight

20 March 2026

By John Pickard

All the serious capitalist newspapers have their military experts and analysts commenting on the war that Israel and the US are waging on Iran, and the limited but effective response of a state so relentlessly bombed for three weeks.

We have, on the one hand, the swaggering bombast and exaggeration from the White House and Jerusalem, but on the other, a cold hard reality: that despite suffering enormous losses to its military capability, Tehran has blocked the Straits of Hormuz for the foreseeable future.

We should not forget the appalling human cost of this unnecessary war and given the complete imbalance militarily, most of the cost is borne by those populations bombed by Israel and the USA. The Iranian Red Crescent Society has reported that more than 18,000 civilians have been injured and 204 children have been killed, most of the latter by a US Tomahawk missile hitting a girls’ primary school on the first day of the war. More than 1,400 people have been killed.

In the conflict between the Lebanese Hezbollah and Israel, nearly 800 have been killed, again the big majority of them civilians killed by aerial bombing by the Israeli ‘Defence’ Force. On the other side of the conflict, few have died: thirteen US service personnel and around the same number of civilians in Israel, killed by Iranian missiles.

The overwhelming might of the two most powerful air forces in the world, have tipped the military scales completely in their favour. However, so far, the economic and political consequences of the war are largely being determined by Tehran.  

Iran is a country of 92 million, and even though it being crippled by an unrelenting air assault, the regime is defiant. For the ‘Islamic Republic’, having elected Mojtaba Khamenei, the son of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, as the new Supreme Leader, the bottom line is simply survival. Every day it survives will be counted as a victory.

Iran planned for an asymmetric war

Iran always planned for an asymmetric war, meaning they would never be able to answer Israeli/US air power, but they would still be able to widen the war to all the other oil-producing states in the region. In planning for this eventuality, they ensured that their command and control structures were far less centralised than they had been. So far, they have successfully widened the war, closing the Straits of Hormuz through which a fifth of global oil flows and an even greater proportion of Liquefied Natural Gas.

According to all of the expert commentators now, the current crisis in oil production and distribution is the most significant ever – more important and serious than any other oil crisis in modern times.

According to military experts, it takes very little in the way of sophisticated armaments to blockade the Straits. Simple contact mines – which Iran has yet to deploy – can do it, spreading them around the twenty-mile wide waterway by its circular currents. Even the threat of mines will deter shipping, and that is before taking into account anti-ship missiles and other ordnance which the Iranians still have intact and unused.

Donald Trump is not committing the US navy to escort tankers through the Straits of Hormuz, because his top brass will have explained to him with simple pictures and four-letter words, that any naval escorts would be sitting ducks. Something like eighteen ships of various sizes have been hit by Iranian drones or missiles and any naval vessel would be a key target.

Trump’s comment on Truth Social, in which he branded European powers as ‘COWARDS’ for refusing to do what his navy refuses to do…escort tankers through Hormuz

In 1988 a US naval vessel struck a contact mine doing precisely what Trump is demanding of European navies – providing escort. As for the rest of the NATO navies, they have replied to Trump very politely, “Certainly, Mr Trump, but after you”. One top French naval officer was more blunt on social media, comparing Trump’s call for European naval escorts to selling cheap tickets on the Titanic, afterit had already hit the iceberg.

The economic fallout of the war is escalating, slowly but surely. By bombing the Iranian facilities tapping the undersea gas field, which it shares with Qatar, Israel has provided Iran with the pretext it needed to attack and disable the Qatari side of the field. As we write, the price of Brent Crude, an international price marker, has risen to $112 a barrel.

The political and economic fall-out of the war

The longer the war goes on, the greater will be the economic consequences and therefore the greater the political risk to the White House. Even if the war were to end this week – and that is unlikely – it would take many months to bring oil and gas production back to anything like the levels of February. Higher petrol prices are here for the duration.

Not only that, but the blockading of fertilisers through the Straits will also impact on food prices, as will the costs of transporting food.

[See this post by Marxist economist, Michael Roberts, on Iran the US economy.]

Trump was elected on a promise to keep out of foreign wars and to raise living standards. He has done neither. A majority of the US population are opposed to the war and the longer it goes on, and the more the oil blockade impacts on prices, the greater will be the opposition. The price of gasoline for US motorists is not coming down any time soon. If anything, it is likely to increase further – and with each passing week the US mid-term elections loom closer.

There are voices of opposition to the war even from within the Republican Party, as leading politicians of the right can see which way the wind is blowing. The US media outlet CNN reported on the suggested additional $200bn that Trump is apparently going to request from Congress for defence – the war is costing around $10bn a week – but some Republicans are against. Lauren Boebert, “a staunch Trump ally”, told CNN she would not support more money for the war “under any circumstance”.

“I am a no. I have already told leadership.” She said, “I am a no on any war supplemental. I am so tired of spending money over there. I have folks in Colorado who can’t afford to live. We need America first policies right now.”

Texas Republican, Chip Roy, CNN, “They [the administration] got a whole lot more briefing and a whole lot more explaining to do on how we’re going to pay for it and what’s the mission here?”

Kentucky Republican, Thomas Massie said to CNN: “It begs the question, how long do they plan to be there? What are the goals? Is this the first $200 billion? Does this turn into a trillion?”

Trump likely looking for an ‘off ramp’

Yet for Trump, there is no easy way out from this war, although by now he is most likely looking for one. “There are hints”,  a recent Financial Times editorial noted, “that he [Trump] is indeed seeking an off-ramp…Yet the war he started has no good ending…Trump will pay the price of his Iran folly”. It is impossible to say what Trump will do; he is as unpredictable as he is ignorant and shallow. But it cannot be a bright future for him.

In Israel, too, there will be consequences in the long term. There is widespread popular support at home for Netanyahu in his war against Iran, but the war with Hezbollah in the north is turning into another “forever war”, involving ground troops and the occupation of ever more territory (in Syria also). One correspondent in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, has referred to the wars in Iran and Lebanon turning into “Israel’ Vietnam”.

Haaretz article

Israel is isolated diplomatically and politically more than at any time in its entire near eighty-year history. Even in the United States, before the war, CNN reported that “Gallup polling had shown Americans’ views of Israel hitting a 21st century low; most strikingly, Americans for the first time didn’t sympathize more with Israelis than Palestinians.”

Now, within the media, among politicians and in the public at large, there is a growing perception that this war was initiated and directed by Netanyahu, not Trump. The resignation of Joe Kent, Trump’s top ‘counter-terrorism’ official is an indication of that. That being the case, it will lead to further and far more damaging isolation for Israel. This is important, because Israel as a colonial-settler enterprise, was only viable because of the vast amounts of military and financial assistance given to it, especially by the USA.

The idea that the war can be easily ended with regime change is a pipe-dream of Trump and Netanyahu. The Iranian government is hated by a large part of the population, and not without good cause. The recent opposition demonstrations and strikes were met with ferocious violence by regime supporers and the Iranian ‘Revolutionary’ Guard, with possibly tens of thousands killed.

Iranian opposition will develop after the war

But the air campaign of Trump and Netanyahu has reduced the chance of a serious opposition making itself felt. If anything, the regime has been strengthened. The opposition, under a rain of bombs will be naturally hesitant, particularly seeing a hated ‘Supreme Leader’ replaced by someone worse and thirty years younger.

One Iranian sociologist, speaking to the Financial Times from Tehran (under conditions of anonymity), reported that “there was anecdotal evidence of a growing ‘sense of nationalism emerging from the war’ as happened during Israel’s 12-day conflict against Iran last year”. This spokesperson, who has been an opponent of the regime, nonetheless suggested that “The fear of Iran’s destruction is increasingly uniting people as they fear the consequences of such a large-scale conflict.”

The exiled son of the late and unlamented Shah of Iran, Reza Pahlavi, actually welcomed the joint US/Israeli military action, and that has not endeared him to oppositionists in Iran. “Maybe he should come now with his three daughters and see how it feels to be bombarded,” one woman told the Financial Times. “Those who supported the war should take responsibility now. But I doubt they will.” As if to reinforce the message, the leaders of the regime are urging their supporters – and they are still there in their millions – into the streets to suppress any opposition voices.

But like all wars, this war will have to end sometime, even if it is far too late to prevent significant political damage to Trump. When it does end, and when millions of ordinary workers are picking up the pieces of their shattered lives, that is when it would be far more likely that there will be opposition developing again, as workers regain their confidence.

Higher energy prices as the big corporations make a killing

For us here in the UK, the economic consequences of the war are going to fall on the shoulders of ordinary working class people. As we go to press, the interest rate of government 10-year bonds is over 5%, the highest for years (it was 4.4% a month ago). The big oil and energy companies will make a killing as households are forced to pay huge rises in electricity and gas prices.

Look out in the coming months for emergency budget statements and either higher taxes or cuts in public expenditure, or both. We will hear all the usual arguments about “all being in this together”, as the big energy companies see their share price going through the roof.

Starmer, too, will suffer political fall-out for this war. His personal ratings could not fall much lower, without breaking the YouGov scales, but his vacillating “no-we-don’t- yes-we-do” support for Trump’s war on Iran will come back to haunt him, as will his constant act as a mouthpiece for the Labour Friends of Netanyahu.

We are barely three months into the new year. If capitalism were a ‘house’ we would have to say that it is a building being consumed by fire, a huge conflagration that will impact on the lives of billions of people. It is time to end the system and put out the fire.