The Names Given to the Measures Against Iran Are as Aggressive as They Are Straightforward
In this issue, I would like to take a closer look at the state of the U.S. economy, examining debt, growth and inflation trends. I believe that examining these aspects in more detail will help to explain the U.S.’s aggressive stance. To illustrate this, I will present a variety of charts that I have collected over the past few months.
Looking back on the last 14 months of the Trump 2.0 administration, there’s a lot to take in. Anyone who thought that the imposition of exorbitantly high tariffs was the height of uncertainty now, following the renaming of the State Department as the Department of War, faces an even greater increase in uncertainty. The hegemon, which previously seemed only prepared to defend itself, is now becoming offensively aggressive and warmongering.
It’s Impossible to Keep up With Trump
The contradictions in Donald Trump’s statements are numerous and obvious. Simply dismissing them as senility or stupidity does not address the issue.
I think confusing all parties is a deliberate strategy. While anyone who calls Trump stupid might be right, they’re probably actually wrong.
When statements are unclear, I tend to focus more on the outcomes of actions. This leads me to an unpleasant conclusion. Once again, it is important to examine and evaluate the fundamentals, and hopefully draw the right conclusions from them.
The War in Iran as a Means of Strengthening the United States
‘Make America great again’. That is the current administration’s motto. However, the general public may not realise that the United States is already in decline. This is a process that the United States is unwilling to accept.
It is unlikely that the United States will be able to return to a healthy path without suffering significant setbacks. However, if a country is in decline but still has considerable influence, it can reverse its decline to some extent by dragging the rest of the world into a crisis.
As Expected, the War Against Iran Has Led to the Closure of the Strait of Hormuz
U.S. strategists have been aware of this possibility for years, including those in the Trump 2.0 administration. If they were aware of this and willing to accept the consequences, it may have been a deliberate strategy. Europe has had a trade surplus with the US for years. The same is increasingly true of Asia. In particular, Asia poses a threat to the hegemon in terms of population growth and technological progress. The majority of Asia’s fossil fuels come from the Arab world.
If the Closure of the Strait of Hormuz Were to Be a Clear Consequence of the Attack on Iran, Would Economic Damage to Asia Be the Actual Goal?
Militarily weakening Iran and thereby harming Asia may sound like a complete success for the U.S., even if that conclusion seems absurd at first. However, when viewed in terms of its consequences, this conclusion is no longer absurd.
Unlike its “Arab partners”, the U.S. can export to the entire world and, above all, meet its own needs. It is the world’s largest energy exporter. Exports are sold at significantly higher prices, which will improve the US trade balance. The U.S. believes: ‘If I weaken the rest of the world, I’ll be “great again”!’
