Here Are The Three Goals That Trump Wants To Achieve Through His Global Trade War

Andrew Korybko

He hopes to strengthen the US’ supply chain sovereignty, renegotiate its ties with all countries with a view towards getting them to distance themselves from China, and shape the emerging world order.

Trump’s decision to tariff the entire world to varying extents as revenge for their tariffs against the US has shaken the global economy to its core. Instead of restoring free and fair trade like he claims to want, which would give American companies an advantage, he might inadvertently accelerate regionalization trends and the subsequent division of the world into a collection of trade blocs. Even in that scenario, however, he could still advance the three unstated goals that are responsible for this policy.

The first is to strengthen the US’ supply chain sovereignty so as to eliminate the leverage that other countries have over it. This might not be pursued solely for the sake of it, but perhaps also as contingency planning, thus hinting at concerns about a major war. The two most likely adversaries are China and Iran, and a hot conflict with either would throw the global economy into turmoil. Trump might therefore want to prioritize reshoring in order for the US to preemptively minimize the consequences.

The second goal builds upon the first and relates to the US prompting every country to renegotiate their bilateral ties, during which time the US could offer to reduce tariffs in exchange for certain concessions. These could take the form of distancing themselves from China to a degree and gradually replacing it with the US with their top trade partner. Other incentives could also be dangled such as technology-sharing and military deals. The purpose would be to weaken China by chipping away its foreign trade.

And finally, the last goal is to shape the emerging world order, to which end the US had to speed up the end of the present one by shaking the global economy to its core like Trump just did. Obtaining supply chain sovereignty and replacing China as the top trade partner for as many countries as possible would give the US’ leverage over a sizeable portion of the world. While it’s premature to speculate the ways in which the US could exploit this, it’ll almost certainly be in the context of its systemic rivalry with China.

Even if Trump’s global trade war unintentionally turbocharges regionalization trends and the subsequent division of the world into a collection of trade blocs instead of serving as the unprecedented power play that he expects, the US could still take advantage of this to implement its “Fortress America” policy. This refers to the US restoring its unipolar hegemony over the Western Hemisphere, which would make it strategically autarkic if it receives preferential access to these countries’ resources and markets.

In that event, the US would survive and could even thrive even if it’s pushed out of the Eastern Hemisphere upon losing the major war that it might be planning or if the consequences thereof make that part of the world too dysfunctional for the US to manage, which could lead to the US returning to its 1920s-like isolationism. To be clear, the US is unlikely to voluntarily abandon the Eastern Hemisphere, but it would still make sense to plan for that possibility just in case circumstances compel it to do so.

All in all, Trump’s global trade war is an epochal event that’ll leave a lasting impact on International Relations regardless of its outcome, but it’s too early to say for sure exactly what’ll come from it. The only thing that can be said with any certainty is that Trump has a grand plan in mind even if he doesn’t ultimately achieve any of his goals, the three most likely of which were touched upon in this analysis. In any case, the old era of globalization is now over, but it remains to be seen what’ll replace it and when.

 

Why’s Israel Reportedly Lobbying The US To Keep Russia’s Bases In Syria?

Andrew Korybko

Israel knows which way the wind is blowing and will therefore do whatever is needed to ensure that its interests are safeguarded by key players in the global systemic transition.

Reuters cited unnamed sources to report that Israel is lobbying the US to keep Russia’s bases in Syria as part of a plan to counterbalance Turkish influence there. According to them, Israel fears that Hamas might relocate to Syria and then operate from there under Turkish protection, which could drastically worsen Israeli-Turkish tensions. They didn’t explain how Russia’s continued military presence in Syria could avert that scenario, however, nor how the US could convince Syria not to kick them out either.

Nevertheless, the little that was revealed sheds light on what Israel might have in mind, namely an informal trilateral arrangement centered on their shared interests in preventing Turkiye from dominating post-Assad Syria. Should they fail, then Russia fears that Turkiye could hold its bases there hostage as part of some geopolitical blackmail scheme; Israel fears Hamas establishing itself there with Turkish protection; and the US fears the preceding scenario leading to a serious crisis within its allied network.

The first step towards protecting their corresponding interests is to ensure that Syria can rely on Russia as an economic and military counterbalance to Turkiye, which necessitates the US agreeing to let Russia maintain its military presence there. The prerequisite is getting the US to understand Russia’s crucial role in this respect, ergo the reported Israeli lobbying, after which the US would then have to convey this to Syria. That could take the form of assuring it that sanctions relief isn’t conditional on kicking Russia out.

An unnamed high-ranking EU official toldreporters in late January that “We have already informed the new authorities in Syria that the normalization process hinges on removing all manner of foreign presence, be it military or some other tentacles. Three countries are present there, and Russia is one of them. So yes, we keep pressing them on this matter.” In spite of that, the EU just lifted some sanctions on energy, transport, and banking, thus suggesting that its position has unofficially changed since then.

This volte-face is either due to Israeli lobbying and/or US pressure, the first of which would show that the EU is still doing regional favors for Israel even after harshly criticizing its conduct in Gaza while the second would show that the transatlantic rift over Ukraine isn’t as serious as many thought. After all, it’s a major concession on the EU’s part to lift some sanctions on Syria even though Russia still retains its two bases there that the bloc demanded be removed as a condition for this, hence the aforesaid speculation.

With this precedent in mind, it can be concluded that Israel has already made progress on relieving external pressure upon Syria to kick Russia out, whether by lobbying the EU and/or the US, the latter with regard to having possibly gotten it to convince the Europeans about the importance of this. The next step is to then ensure that the terms that Syria requires from Russia for keeping its bases aren’t so onerous as to (perhaps deliberately at Turkiye’s behest) scuttle their talks on this issue.

It's here where the spirit of the nascent Russian-US“New Détente” could see the US can explain to Syria that it wouldn’t object to Russia rebuilding some of its armed forces that Israel destroyed late last year within certain limits and conveying that Israel agrees to this as well. At the same time, the US can also convey that Israel might destroy whatever equipment Syria receives from Turkiye and could resume its years-long bombing campaign there against what it considers to be terrorists, in this case Hamas.

This carrot-and-stick approach might be sufficient for Syria to agree to scale back whatever onerous demands it might make of Russia in exchange for preserving its military presence, provided of course that the interim authorities are rational, though that can’t be taken for granted given their sordid pasts. Should this second step succeed, then the final one would be for the US to advise Syria on how to most effectively leverage its renewed strategic partnership with Russia for counterbalancing Turkiye.

Apart from allowing it to rebuild the Syrian Armed Forces within certain agreed-upon limits, this could take the form of offering Russia more energy and reconstruction contracts to expand its existing presence in these spheres, which can be explained to Turkiye on the basis that Russia has more experience. Even if Turkiye interprets this as a snub, its hands would be tied in terms of how to respond since any vindictive pressure upon Syria could counterproductively push Syria further away from it.

Through these means, Russia, Israel, and the US would advance their shared interests in preventing Turkiye from dominating post-Assad Syria, which could then result in more trilateral cooperation on other issues such as convincing Iran to reach a new nuclear deal with the US. There’s even the possibility of expanding their trilateral to include their shared Indian partner so as to form a quadrilateral for managing European, Mideast, and Asia-Pacific affairs if the “New Détente” leads to a new world order.

Israel knows which way the wind is blowing and will therefore do whatever is needed to ensure that its interests are safeguarded by key players in the global systemic transition. Unilaterally advancing these same interests could entail enormous costs and risks such as if it feels compelled to bomb Hamas militants sheltering in Turkiye’s Syrian bases should that worst-case scenario materialize. That’s why Israel prefers to find common ground with Russia and the US in order for them to help it with this.

While the Russian-US interplay in Syria is pivotal for protecting Israel’s regional security interests, the India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor (IMEC) is pivotal for advancing Israel’s economic interests. That megaproject was frozen after October 7^th but Israel hopes to soon revive it. The US also participates in IMEC while Putin declaredthat “[IMEC] will only benefit us” so this serves as yet another convergence of their interests with Israel’s and could justify expanding their trilateral into a quadrilateral with India.

For there to be any chance of that happening, the Russian-US interplay in Syria must first succeed in convincing that country’s interim authorities to maintain Russia’s military presence there, after which it must effectively counterbalance Turkiye with Israeli-advised US guidance. Only then might their trilateral move towards other issues, dependent in large part on the “New Détente” unfolding in parallel, and consider inviting India to join them in forming a “Big Four” that geopolitically reshapes Eurasia.

 

Iran Lacks The Leverage For A Fair Deal With The US

Andrew Korybko

It’ll therefore either have to accept a lopsided one or prepare for a major war that it might lose.

Iranian-US tensions are boiling after Trump threatened to bomb Iran following its rejection of direct talks over a new nuclear deal. He also ordered the Pentagon to move six B-2 stealth bombers, which CNN assessed to be a full 30% of the US’ stealth bomber fleet, to the Indian Ocean island of Diego Garcia. The Iranian Supreme Leader responded by promising strong retaliation if the US attacks while one of his chief advisors warned that their country would then have “no choice” but to build nukes if that happens.

Although the US Intelligence Community’s latest Annual Threat Assessment claimed that “Iran is not building a nuclear weapon”, there have been long-standing concerns that it could quickly do so if the decision is made due to its nuclear program allegedly have a rapid breakout potential. This makes it no different in principle than Japan’s, which could begin churning out nukes in a matter of months, but neither the US nor its regional allies consider Japan to be a threat, unlike how they view Iran.

The US’ renewed bombing campaign against Iran’s Houthi allies in Yemen might have been partially intended to send a message to the Islamic Republic aimed at getting it to enter direct talks over this issue by signaling that Trump 2.0 does indeed have the political will to initiate military action if it refuses. Despite Iran’s recent rejection of his demand, Trump might still hold off on this for now due to the likelihood that Iran could inflict unacceptable retaliatory damage to the US’ regional bases and allies.

Furthermore, diplomacy hasn’t yet been exhausted since Iran didn’t reject indirect talks of the kind that Russia offered to mediate after reportedly being asked by the US to do so, which was discussed here. Therefore, it would be premature for the US to seriously consider bombing Iran at this time, yet that option isn’t off the table if indirect talks fail to reach a deal. Iran lacks the leverage for a fair deal with the US, however, so it’ll either have to accept a lopsided one or prepare for a major war that it might lose.

Iran is a proud civilization-state that’s loath to subordinate itself to anyone, hence the difficulty in getting it to agree to drastic curbs on its nuclear energy program that would enshrine its status as a second-class country in this regard, all while abandoning any chance of nuclear weapons in the future. From Iran’s perspective, this could embolden Israel into one day launching a large-scale conventional or even nuclear war against it, which Iran believes has only hitherto been deterred by dangling this Damocles’ sword.

That said, while Iran could inflict unacceptable retaliatory damage to the US’ regional bases and allies (first of all Israel) if it’s attacked over its refusal to agree to a Russian-mediated lopsided deal, it cannot inflict such damage to the US’ nuclear triad and would thus likely be destroyed. Iran couldn’t count on Russia intervening to help it either since their newly updated strategic partnership doesn’t include mutual defense obligations and Moscow doesn’t want war with Washington or West Jerusalem.

Even though the US could survive a major war with Iran, it still prefers to avoid one. So long as the US’ demands remain limited to drastically curbing Iran’s nuclear energy program and don’t expand to include curbs on its support for regional allies or its ballistic missile program, then creative diplomacy could prevail. For that to happen, Russia would have to devise a set of incentives for Iran that the US approves of and Iran then agrees to, but that’s still a far way off and Trump might strike first if he loses patience.

 

Here Are The Three Goals That Trump Wants To Achieve Through His Global Trade War

He hopes to strengthen the US’ supply chain sovereignty, renegotiate its ties with all countries with a view towards getting them to distance themselves from China, and shape the emerging world order.

Trump’s decision to tariff the entire world to varying extents as revenge for their tariffs against the US has shaken the global economy to its core. Instead of restoring free and fair trade like he claims to want, which would give American companies an advantage, he might inadvertently accelerate regionalization trends and the subsequent division of the world into a collection of trade blocs. Even in that scenario, however, he could still advance the three unstated goals that are responsible for this policy.

The first is to strengthen the US’ supply chain sovereignty so as to eliminate the leverage that other countries have over it. This might not be pursued solely for the sake of it, but perhaps also as contingency planning, thus hinting at concerns about a major war. The two most likely adversaries are China and Iran, and a hot conflict with either would throw the global economy into turmoil. Trump might therefore want to prioritize reshoring in order for the US to preemptively minimize the consequences.

The second goal builds upon the first and relates to the US prompting every country to renegotiate their bilateral ties, during which time the US could offer to reduce tariffs in exchange for certain concessions. These could take the form of distancing themselves from China to a degree and gradually replacing it with the US with their top trade partner. Other incentives could also be dangled such as technology-sharing and military deals. The purpose would be to weaken China by chipping away its foreign trade.

And finally, the last goal is to shape the emerging world order, to which end the US had to speed up the end of the present one by shaking the global economy to its core like Trump just did. Obtaining supply chain sovereignty and replacing China as the top trade partner for as many countries as possible would give the US’ leverage over a sizeable portion of the world. While it’s premature to speculate the ways in which the US could exploit this, it’ll almost certainly be in the context of its systemic rivalry with China.

Even if Trump’s global trade war unintentionally turbocharges regionalization trends and the subsequent division of the world into a collection of trade blocs instead of serving as the unprecedented power play that he expects, the US could still take advantage of this to implement its “Fortress America” policy. This refers to the US restoring its unipolar hegemony over the Western Hemisphere, which would make it strategically autarkic if it receives preferential access to these countries’ resources and markets.

In that event, the US would survive and could even thrive even if it’s pushed out of the Eastern Hemisphere upon losing the major war that it might be planning or if the consequences thereof make that part of the world too dysfunctional for the US to manage, which could lead to the US returning to its 1920s-like isolationism. To be clear, the US is unlikely to voluntarily abandon the Eastern Hemisphere, but it would still make sense to plan for that possibility just in case circumstances compel it to do so.

All in all, Trump’s global trade war is an epochal event that’ll leave a lasting impact on International Relations regardless of its outcome, but it’s too early to say for sure exactly what’ll come from it. The only thing that can be said with any certainty is that Trump has a grand plan in mind even if he doesn’t ultimately achieve any of his goals, the three most likely of which were touched upon in this analysis. In any case, the old era of globalization is now over, but it remains to be seen what’ll replace it and when.

 

Global Trade War. Trump’s Decision to “Tariff the Entire World”

Here Are the Three Goals That Trump Wants to Achieve

Trump’s decision to tariff the entire world to varying extents as revenge for their tariffs against the US has shaken the global economy to its core. Instead of restoring free and fair trade like he claims to want, which would give American companies an advantage, he might inadvertently accelerate regionalization trends and the subsequent division of the world into a collection of trade blocs. Even in that scenario, however, he could still advance the three unstated goals that are responsible for this policy.

The first is to strengthen the US’ supply chain sovereignty so as to eliminate the leverage that other countries have over it. This might not be pursued solely for the sake of it, but perhaps also as contingency planning, thus hinting at concerns about a major war. The two most likely adversaries are China and Iran, and a hot conflict with either would throw the global economy into turmoil. Trump might therefore want to prioritize reshoring in order for the US to preemptively minimize the consequences.

The second goal builds upon the first and relates to the US prompting every country to renegotiate their bilateral ties, during which time the US could offer to reduce tariffs in exchange for certain concessions. These could take the form of distancing themselves from China to a degree and gradually replacing it with the US with their top trade partner. Other incentives could also be dangled such as technology-sharing and military deals. The purpose would be to weaken China by chipping away its foreign trade.

And finally, the last goal is to shape the emerging world order, to which end the US had to speed up the end of the present one by shaking the global economy to its core like Trump just did. Obtaining supply chain sovereignty and replacing China as the top trade partner for as many countries as possible would give the US’ leverage over a sizeable portion of the world. While it’s premature to speculate the ways in which the US could exploit this, it’ll almost certainly be in the context of its systemic rivalry with China.

Even if Trump’s global trade war unintentionally turbocharges regionalization trends and the subsequent division of the world into a collection of trade blocs instead of serving as the unprecedented power play that he expects, the US could still take advantage of this to implement its “Fortress America” policy. This refers to the US restoring its unipolar hegemony over the Western Hemisphere, which would make it strategically autarkic if it receives preferential access to these countries’ resources and markets.

In that event, the US would survive and could even thrive even if it’s pushed out of the Eastern Hemisphere upon losing the major war that it might be planning or if the consequences thereof make that part of the world too dysfunctional for the US to manage, which could lead to the US returning to its 1920s-like isolationism. To be clear, the US is unlikely to voluntarily abandon the Eastern Hemisphere, but it would still make sense to plan for that possibility just in case circumstances compel it to do so.

All in all, Trump’s global trade war is an epochal event that’ll leave a lasting impact on International Relations regardless of its outcome, but it’s too early to say for sure exactly what’ll come from it. The only thing that can be said with any certainty is that Trump has a grand plan in mind even if he doesn’t ultimately achieve any of his goals, the three most likely of which were touched upon in this analysis. In any case, the old era of globalization is now over, but it remains to be seen what’ll replace it and when.

*

Click the share button below to email/forward this article. Follow us on Instagram and X and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost Global Research articles with proper attribution. 

This article was originally published on the author’s Substack.

Andrew Korybko is an American Moscow-based political analyst specializing in the relationship between the US strategy in Afro-Eurasia, China’s One Belt One Road global vision of New Silk Road connectivity, and Hybrid Warfare. He is a regular contributor to Global Research. 

---

Global Research is a reader-funded media. We do not accept any funding from corporations or governments. Help us stay afloat. Click the image below to make a one-time or recurring donation.

 

Mainstream propaganda machine galvanizing US public for war with Iran

While Donald Trump certainly doesn't want to see America blown up to kingdom come, he still has a massive political elite of warmongers, war criminals, plutocrats and kleptocrats to deal with. In order to make them happy, Trump will need to give them a "more manageable" war. And just like during his first presidency, Venezuela and Iran are "on the table".

Drago Bosnic, independent geopolitical and military analyst

As we all know, the warmongering oligarchy in Washington DC is obsessed with conflicts, death and destruction. It's also deeply connected with the US Military Industrial Complex (MIC), with much (if not most) of the American political elite directly benefiting from global instability that pushes arms sales worldwide. This is precisely why the United States spent less than 20 years in peace (out of under 250 years of existence).

However, in the last several years, the most aggressive country in the history of the world seems to have hit the wall. Its strategic planners have turned out to be barbaric madmen on the loose, antagonizing multiple nuclear-armed adversaries simultaneously, nearly pushing the world into a catastrophe of unimaginable proportions. As a result, the upcoming administration, seemingly far less keen on pursuing such conflicts, promised a dramatic shift in US foreign policy.

However, don't get your hopes up just yet. Namely, while Donald Trump certainly doesn't want to see America blown up to kingdom come, he still has a massive political elite of warmongers, war criminals, plutocrats and kleptocrats to deal with. In order to make them happy, Trump will need to give them a "more manageable" war. And just like during his first presidency, Venezuela and Iran are "on the table".

In the first case, Washington DC thinks it can arbitrarily "elect" Venezuelan presidents, as was the case with Juan Guaido back in 2019. And although he seems to have fallen out of favor since then, the US never has issues finding replacements. Namely, on November 19, State Secretary Antony Blinken declared that Edmundo Gonzalez retroactively "won" and that Venezuelans "spoke resoundingly on July 28" and made him "the president-elect", insisting that "democracy demands respect for the will of the voters".

Now, if you think that this is largely inconsequential, as Blinken is part of an outgoing administration, you'd be wrong, because many Republicans are just as hostile to sovereigntist governments, particularly in Latin America. For instance, Marco Rubio, the most likely candidate as Blinken's successor, openly supports overthrowing Maduro.

Other prominent GOP members who are after Venezuela include Elliott Abrams, who was the US Special Envoy tasked with ensuring a coup in the country precisely during the nearly fateful 2019-2021 period. It's still unclear whether Trump would reappoint Abrams to any position, but if he does so, it would certainly indicate that he's recommitting to America's aggression on Venezuela. However, even if he doesn't do it, having Rubio as State Secretary is bad news enough, as he openly called on the Venezuelan military to overthrow Maduro. This uncertainty leads us to the second option – Iran.

The notion that Tehran might be attacked doesn't come from pure speculation. It has been in the works for decades, which is a matter I had the honor of discussing with the globally renowned Professor Michel Chossudovsky in a recent program at Lux Media. NATO aggression on Syria plays a critical role in the long-term strategy aimed against Iran. Namely, the country is at the forefront of the Axis of Resistance (AoR), an alliance that includes a number of actors in the Middle East and beyond, but is largely deployed in Iran, Iraq, Yemen and Lebanon.

Syria was one of the most prominent members of AoR, making its destruction by NATO-backed terrorists and occupation forces a major blow to the alliance. Worse yet, Damascus is not only out of the game as an ally, but is now effectively an enemy, as the Islamic radicals who occupied the country are extremely hostile to Tehran. Not to mention that Hezbollah is now cut off.

Instability in Syria could now easily spill over to Iraq, where various Shia militias are closely aligned with Iran. This was likely one of the intended consequences of overthrowing Bashar al-Asad, as destabilizing Iraq could give the Pentagon a casus belli to attack Shia militias. This would push the US, its allies, vassals and satellite states all the way to Iran's western borders, leaving it extremely vulnerable to crawling destabilization.

Israeli ties with Turkey and Azerbaijan might play a major role in this, as both countries are eyeing Iran. Namely, their pan-Turkist, Neo-Ottoman ambitions include northwestern parts of the country, where ethnic Azeris dominate. Tehran is certainly aware of these megalomaniacal, expansionist policies, but is still trying to pursue peaceful coexistence. However, this might be too optimistic as the US keeps pushing for war, which will also require the participation of its regional allies.

The activities of the mainstream propaganda machine and corrupt federal institutions are very telling in this regard. Namely, the same people who were downplaying the actual assassination attempt on Trump, calling it a "shooting", and who actively tried to prevent him from even running, both through smear campaigns and "legal" means, are suddenly "worried sick" about an alleged "Iranian plot to kill him". This now includes a supposed "mothership of the Iranian Navy launching drones at the US", with some even calling it a "Pearl Harbor moment". There have been numerous reports about this, including supposed "alien activity". Some have openly suggested that Tehran sent these motherships to possibly "assassinate Trump". However, the "tiny" issue with this theory is that such Iranian Navy ships are literally on the other side of the planet. But, who knows, maybe those "evil Persians" are now "working with aliens".

Interestingly, even the Pentagon has denied Iranian involvement, but they still persist among politicians and the media. There are even theories that the drones are there to monitor radiation levels, giving the whole story an entirely different twist. On the other hand, a more realistic explanation might be that the corrupt federal institutions want to have an excuse to impose totalitarian control in the US and an unlimited ability to start wars.

Namely, as the "FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018" expires on December 20, the government might be using this to "manipulate the Congress into passing the new H.R.8610 (Counter-UAS Authority Security, Safety, and Reauthorization Act of 2024) which will include appropriations and enhanced government powers to control citizens, and they're even going so far as to use it to push for acts of war against other countries". In other words, back to square one.

On December 13, the Wall Street Journal even published a piece claiming that the upcoming administration is planning to attack Iran, while other reports indicate that Israel is involved. Namely, both are allegedly looking for ways to attack Tehran before it gets the chance to acquire nuclear weapons. Whether this is true remains to be seen, but it's certainly against American and Israeli interests to allow Iran to develop such a deterrent, as it would give the multipolar world another effectively untouchable power.

Defeating Tehran would also greatly destabilize Eurasia and BRICS, which is beneficial to the so-called "rules-based world order". Another interesting aspect is also the rapidly growing US debt, which went up $15 trillion under Janet Yellenand is projected to reach a mind-bending $40 trillion by 2026. This is quite telling, considering that America has a history of starting wars to eliminate such financial crises.

 

How Trump’s Tariff Tizzy is burning down the house

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

Circus ringmaster Trump’s Tariff Tizzy (TTT), christened by himself as “Liberation Day”, is being largely interpreted around the world – Global North and Global South alike – as Slaughterhouse Day.

This de facto uncontrolled economic demolition gambit starts with the warped fantasy that launching a customs war on China is a bright idea. As bright as collecting a few trillion extra dollars in tariffs assuming the rest of the planet will be somewhat “encouraged” to sell to the Hegemon, while pretending that these tariffs will lead to the re-industrialization of the U.S.

The tragicomic mask of a self-appointed circus ringmaster of turbo-capitalism may be as pathetic as the European chihuahua rage boosting their “revenge” via Rearmament – with funds that they plan to steal from the savings accounts of unsuspecting citizens.

The indispensable Michael Hudson has configured the key problem. Allow me a little tweak: “Sanctions and threats are the only thing that the United States has left. It no longer can offer other countries a win-win situation, and Trump has said that America has to be the net gainer in any international deal it’s made, whether it’s a financial deal or a trade deal. And if America is saying, any deal we make, you lose, I win”, that Mafia extorsion gambit does not exactly reflect the Art of the Deal.

Prof. Hudson neatly describes Trump’s negotiation tactics: “When you don’t have very much to offer economically, all you can do is offer not to hurt other countries, not to sanction them, not to do something that will be against their interest.” Now, with TTT, Trump is actually “offering” to hurt them all. And they will certainly invest in all sorts of counter-tactics to “get away” from that “strategy” of American “diplomacy”.

A trade war on Asia

TTT attacks everyone, especially the EU (“born to hurt us”, according to the circus ringmaster. Wrong, because the EU was invented by the Americans in 1957 to actually keep Europe under control). The EU exports roughly 503 billion euros to the U.S. a year, while importing around 347 billion. Trump is fuming non-stop about this surplus.

So a counter-measure vendetta will be inevitably in store, as already advertised by the toxic Medusa von der Lugen in Brussels – incidentally the sponsor of every weapons producer in Europe.

Yet TTT is above all a trade war on Asia. “Reciprocal” tariffs – not exactly reciprocal – were imposed on China (34%),Vietnam (46%), India (26%), Indonesia (32%), Cambodia (49%), Malaysia (24%), South Korea (25%), Thailand (36%), earthquake-hit Myanmar (44%), Taiwan (32%) and Japan (24%).

Well, even before TTT, a first has been achieved: the circus ringmaster generated a once-in-a-lifetime consensus among China, Japan and South Korea that their response will be coordinated.

Japan and South Korea will import semiconductor raw materials from China, while China will be purchasing chips from Japan and South Korea. Translation: TTT will solidify “supply chain cooperation” among this triad that so far was not exactly too cooperative.

What the circus ringmaster really wants is an iron-clad mechanism – already being developed by his team – that unilaterally imposes whatever level of tariffs Trump may come up with on whatever excuse: could be to circumvent “current manipulation”, to counter a value-added tax, on “security grounds”, whatever. And to hell with international law. For all practical purposes, Trump is burying the WTO.

Even tariffed penguins in Heard island in the South Pacific know that the certified effects of TTT will include rising inflation in the U.S., serious pain on its – delocalized – corporations and most of all the complete collapse of American “credibility” as a reliable and trustworthy trading partner, adding to its certified reputation as “non-agreement capable” – as the Global South knows so well. > Ант: A rentier FIRE Empire (financialization, insurance, real estate, as masterfully analyzed by Michael Hudson), which offshored its manufacturing industries and was gobbled up by a pile of overleveraged hedge funds, Wall Street derivatives and Silicon Valley totalitarian surveillance in the end decides to strike…itself.

Poetic justice applies. Burning Down the House – from inside the house. As for the emerging, sovereign Global Majority, rejoice: and step on the high-speed rail de-dollarization train.

 

US attack on Iran imminent?

Drago BosnicApril 3, 2025

Iran nuclear program map

Become a VT Supporting Member Today

Please keep VT Radio and VT Foreign Policy alive! Donate today to make sure VT stays on the internet free and clear of Big Tech control! Donate today: 

Please Donate - Click Here

US attack on Iran has been on the agenda for nearly half a century at this point. After the 1979 Iranian revolution, the two countries have had an uneasy relationship, to say the least. Despite brief moments of covert and overt cooperation, Washington DC and Tehran have nearly unequivocally been geopolitical adversaries, supporting different sides in the Middle East and beyond. Traditionally, Republican governments tend to be more aggressive toward Iran and the new Trump administration is no different in that regard. Since his first term, Donald Trump has been quite critical of Iran and its policies. This continued during his second term, with the US escalating tensions by directly attacking and bombing Iranian allies such as the Houthis (officially known as the Ansar Allah).

Even the former Biden administration worked to pave the way for more American interventionism in the Middle East, particularly by targeting Syria, which fell to Western-backed terrorists in early December. In the meantime, the mainstream propaganda machine kept galvanizing the American public for war with Iran (even before Trump took office). Worse yet, in the last several months, there have been a number of concrete moves to facilitate such an attack, particularly in terms of deploying strategic assets. US President Donald Trump himself has warned that his country could “launch a bombing attack the likes of which they have never seen before” if Tehran refuses to engage in negotiations and make the “necessary” concessions on its nuclear program.

“If they don’t make a deal, there will be bombing,” he said, adding that “US and Iranian officials are talking” and that “there’s a chance that if they don’t make a deal, that I will do secondary tariffs on them like I did four years ago.”

Trump made the statement in an interview on March 29, following the deployment of at least seven B-2 “Spirit” strategic stealth bombers to the Diego Garcia Naval Support Facility (officially belongs to the British military, but leased to the US Navy and also often used by the USAF). The Pentagon operates only 19 B-2s, meaning that over a third of all operational bombers have been deployed to Diego Garcia. Such a high concentration of these aircraft is certainly not reassuring if one is to maintain peace. Worse yet, military sources report there are also eight B-52 regular strategic bombers/missile carriers, seven C-17 “Globemaster III” heavy transports, ten KC-135 “Stratotanker” aerial refueling tankers and at least one P-8 “Poseidon” ISR (intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance) platform.

The remote position of the island in the middle of the Indian Ocean gives strategic bombers the ability to launch more sorties while operating outside of the range of most land-based missiles. USAF can (and almost certainly does) use Diego Garcia to strike targets all across the Middle East. Although it can be argued that aircraft such as the B-2 are pretty much obsolete against countries like Russia or China, the US seems to be confident that they can overpower Iran’s advanced air defense network. They can carry both nuclear and conventional weapons, including the GBU-57A/B MOP (Massive Ordnance Penetrator) “bunker buster” bombs. Each B-2 can carry a pair of these monstrosities that are very well suited to destroy fortified bases and underground facilities such as those used by the Iranian military.

The bomber’s long range also significantly increases its operational radius while reducing the risk for host and support bases. Officially, Iran still doesn’t operate missiles that could reach Diego Garcia, which is a major reason why the base is so important for the US and its power projection capabilities in the region. On the other hand, Washington DC still has many other bases within the range of Iranian missiles and Tehran has already demonstrated that attacks on its homeland will not go unpunished. Thus, America’s ability to wage war against Iran with impunity is highly questionable. In fact, Tehran has already warned that its missile forces are ready to retaliate in case of escalation. All this sets the stage for yet another US-orchestrated destabilization of not just the Middle East, but the world as a whole.

What’s more, such a move would certainly have detrimental consequences on Trump’s plans to reduce fuel prices in the troubled US economy. Not to mention the fact that Iran is far more heavily armed than was the case only a decade ago. In addition to SAM (surface-to-air missile) and EW (electronic warfare) systems, Tehran has also upgraded its fighter jet fleet, including top-of-the-line Russian-made Su-35 air superiority fighters. Thanks to its advanced avionics and sensors, particularly the OLS-35, this Russian-made jet has enhanced anti-stealth capabilities that would certainly come in handy in countering aircraft such as the B-2. In addition, its already battle-proven ability to network with other weapon systems, particularly air defense assets, makes it perfectly suited for defending against such attacks.