There is a theory that the world's politicians are relying upon at present, which is that “Trump always chickens out”.
The logic is that a President who loves to threaten, and who rarely delivers because he changes his mind before any deadline is reached, will not, as he threatened on Saturday, obliterate Iran's energy systems if they do not reopen the Straits of Hormuz by the close of play today.
There are three problems with this theory.
Firstly, sometimes Trump does not chicken out.
Secondly, on this occasion, the choice may not be within his control. Israel might do what he has threatened; it appears that he has very little control over them.
Thirdly, Iran might force the issue by outright refusal, or by direct military action of its own to indicate its disagreement, and Trump may, as a consequence, have backed himself into a corner from which he cannot see an exit.
What happens then? If the USA does attack, as threatened, Iran has said it will take out the energy facilities in Gulf states such as the UAE, Qatar and Kuwait in retaliation. There are few who now doubt that they still have, despite the bombardment they have suffered, the capacity to do this.
The scale of the consequences is hard to describe. They might not be Armageddon, but they would be cataclysmic. In world history, they would be seen in retrospect as a pivotal event in humankind's development. To suggest that is not to exaggerate. It is to put the threat that we face today in context.
We have built a world based upon oil and gas. The destruction now being threatened would remove between 20% and 30% of oil and gas supplies for the next 10 years, during which period these resources would have to be rebuilt, presuming that sufficient political stability could be created to enable that possibility, which is itself a massive unknown.
The reality is, therefore, that if Trump does not chicken out, and presuming that Iran is not going to change tack, as seems most likely, then we will see an act of economic devastation potentially unprecedented in human history. That is the scale of what might happen.
As it is, the head of the International Energy Agency has suggested, according to The Guardian, that politicians worldwide have underestimated the potential impact of issues already arising from this war. These would, however, appear almost inconsequential if this new attack were to happen.
So what can we do about this? The precise answer is absolutely nothing. We live in a world where events beyond our control are happening. We have a war where fascists are fighting each other, and I put all three of the major combatant parties in this war in that same category. All of them are now theocratically-inspired, semi-democratic at best, fascist states where the power of might is worshipped, and respect for the “other” is minimal, at best. Of the three, Iran was being contained until Trump arrived on the scene. That, however, was insufficient for Netanyahu and Trump, who have deliberately promoted an illegal war that might deliver a catastrophe.
What would that catastrophe look like? Let's start with the one consequence that most people will forget, which is that this will create a climate catastrophe because of the releases of oil and gas that will arise as a consequence of the destruction.
Then let us consider its immediate geographic consequences, not least in an area where the majority of people are utterly dependent upon desalinated water to survive, and where the risk of power disruption will put them into immediate jeopardy. There could be an immediate, massive humanitarian crisis if the power supply to these desalination plants is destroyed, as is likely.
Whatever happens, because of the destruction of the means to a livelihood for many in the region, a refugee crisis is likely to follow from this action, with those people seeking refuge in a world which has now been primed to be more hostile to refugees than has ever, historically, been the case. No one can guess the potential consequences of that.
After that, there is, of course, the consequence for the world economy. Oil and gas supply destruction on the scale that is possible would have massive consequences.
Some parts of the world might become uninhabitable quite quickly. The economic ability to sustain life in extremely cold and very hot regions might be threatened.
Across the world, countries dependent upon imported fuel will face potentially massive trade deficits, which will totally destabilise them as jurisdictions.
Simultaneously, remaining oil and gas producers will be unjustly enriched, increasing the risk of global political instability, although the precise manner in which this might occur will be difficult to forecast, given the enormous disruption to supply chains for many essential products.
If the spillover from energy feeds into fertiliser supply, as is possible, unprecedented levels of famine are also potentially on the cards.
To apply probabilities to any of these outcomes is impossible. We are talking about a situation of genuine uncertainty here, which makes imagining the risk a near impossibility in its own right. I have probably only scratched the surface with the suggestions I have made, but three things are clear.
We face the risk of a massive humanitarian crisis in the short term.
In the mid-term, we face the risk of a major refugee crisis.
And all of this will happen in a period of massive economic disruption as a consequence of a shortage of energy, the possibility of which has never been considered and for which we have no plans for adaptation, which will in turn give rise to potential risks of isolationism and protectionism that can only exacerbate the first two crises.
Right now, the hope is that this risk can be avoided.
But remember, if the risk is avoided today, it does not go away. Trump might talk about declaring victory instead, but we know that that would just be rhetoric. There is no victory to be had here, not least because Trump is in many ways the minor participant in this conflict. Israel is the major aggressor, and against all the perceived odds, Iran retains the capacity to defend itself and counterattack, which means that the opportunity for Israel to also back down would appear to be denied.
What happens next? I do not know. I do know there are lessons to be learned.
The first is that we must not allow fascism.
The second is that the USA and Israel must now be treated as the pariah states they are. They are not our allies. They are, in a very real sense, because of the threats that they pose to our well-being, our enemies. The toxic politics they both represent have to be openly and directly rejected.
Thirdly, the warning has been given, and it is that we need to prepare for a world without oil and gas. We have known this for a long time. We have done nothing about it. The moment to transition to a sustainable world has arrived. Whatever happens, we have no choice but to do that now.
Fourthly, we also have to reimagine how we live. The excess that has characterised some aspects of life for many in the West is not sustainable. This, too, is something that we have known for a long time. Now is the time to embrace that fact.
The only options we are now being given are to make these transitions in a disaster situation or through careful planning. The end destination has to be a different world, whatever happens. The geopolitical one we have has, in almost every imaginable way, reached its limits. That is the only thing I can say with certainty this morning.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Indian Railways was recently congratulating themselves on having electrified 99.4% of the broad gauge network – ie all the network that matters, putting them just behind Switzerland with 100% of the rail network electrified.
As they point out they have just insulated their rail network against what is happening to global oil markets.
By comparison the figure in the UK is about 38% and our per capita GDP is about 15 times India’s
Its a truly stupendous achievement – see also Project Unigauge https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Unigauge that shows that like many nations what can be done AND how national investment projects can also be – peaceful national security projects.
All we have is Farage and his ilk bleating on about the ‘waste of money’; that net zero allegedly represents.
I despair
100% electrification of the railways would insulate them from oil and gas price spikes, but not necessarily good for the environment while 60-70% of India’s electricity is generated by coal fired power plants.
@John Boxhall
Meanwhile in the UK, the D(a)fT has paused the Midland Main Line electrification short of Leicester, raising the prospect that the soon to be required new electric London-Nottingham/Sheffield train fleet will have to lug a load of underfloor diesel engines around for the bits the wires have yet to reach!
Can only agree with your analysis.
Having been in the area, the temperature is about to become a big problem, air conditioning is totally required after mid April.
On the Saudi east coast there is a huge combined desalination and electrical generation plant,fuelled by gas,it supplies the west coast with drinking water through two huge diameter pipelines.
If I know this,I’m sure the Iranians do.
you’d think they would be converting to solar power. Keep the oil reserves for sale or even just in the ground to slow global warming.
This is relevant, given the contents of the blog: https://fiorellaisabel.substack.com/p/the-shadows-of-modern-warfare-in?isFreemail=true&post_id=191531157&publication_id=266184&r=2yq4mg&triedRedirect=true
Extract: “As we arrive on the fourth week of the conflict with no end in sight, the most dangerous question hovers over every strategic discussion: will nuclear weapons enter the battlefield? Israel’s Samson option—the doctrine of last-resort nuclear retaliation—has long included contingency plans for strikin targets if the existence of the Israeli state is perceived as threatened. Iran’s leadership, having watched the United States decapitate its military command structure and strike a school filled with children of the elite, has consolidated national unity rather than fractured as U.S.-Israeli planners anticipated. Kwiatkowski warns that the very desperation now gripping Israeli society—the realization that six million Jews face an indefinite missile campaign from an adversary with seemingly inexhaustible stockpiles, who are also not afraid to die—could trigger precisely the catastrophic response that nuclear doctrine was designed to prevent. “We should be very watchful of both false flag and the temptation by very evil politicians in both Israel and the United States saying that this is the time to experiment with a nuclear battlefield,” she concludes.”
If Israel uses nuclear weap0ons against Iran (even if “just” a demo or to hit a store of drones or some such), as sure as night follows day, Putin will regard this as a green light to use nuclear weapons in Ukraine – perhaps against drone production. Israel has a very long history of causing trouble (e.g. 1970s oil crash) through its actions. There is a way to cool things: EU & Uk to withdraw their embassies, expell all Israelis, cut all commercial ties, expell all Israeli companies etc. This would focus minds in Israel. It is time this country understood that the middle east is not its “war ground” that it does not & never did have carte-blanche to cause trouble.
Much to agree with.
Really cheerful post Mike. Sounds like Gotterdammerung -twilight of the gods or end of the old world order. Richard is probably right about that but I hope we are not dodging fallout next week.
We would probably not be here if the US had acted as the honest broker they claimed to be. In 1977 Likud came to power and Menachem Begin, the Prime Minister, laid down what was not acceptable. Palestine wanted full independence. Israel insisted on control of ‘security’ and continuing with settlements. The US could have insisted the Palestinians had their state and given guarantees to both sides ( the Arab states would have agreed as they wouldn’t want irregular armed groups). If that had occurred much of the cause for the present conflict would not be there. Iran would have accepted that situation-according to most analysts. But the US has sided with Israel.
The Palestine Project website has most of the original source material. They were promised self determination but told to accept a Jewish Homeland – specifically not a state. but it looks like the British administration of the mandate was skewed to favour the Jews.
Rashid Khalidi , a Palestinian historian who was involved in the talks in the 1990s, doesn’t just blame the AIPAC lobby or the American Evangelical vote. The reactionary Arab govts and US corporations had their reasons for the status quo.
It will be interesting to see if the Arab governments feel able to change their stance.
When four retired British generals call for sanctions on Israel for their conduct of the war, we can feel change is in the air.
And then there is also this. Beyond oil: Internet bandwidth, global commerce at risk with Hormuz strait closure | Khaleej Times
Today’s COBRA meeting is insufficient. Crisis meetings and short-term fixes won’t shield us from what’s coming. A revitalised and reinforced Government needs to move immediately from reacting (and even that has come too late) to actively shaping outcomes, attempting to reduce vulnerability before shortages, migration pressures, climate issues and serious financial instability fully emerge. In short, by planning for transformation.
Seems the media are reporting a Five Day delay to the power station infrastructure attacks in Iran by the USA.
It looks as though Trump is chickening out. But as I said, that does not mean Israel will.
Hello again Richard, and thanks for your contributions to ScotEconFest last Saturday. I too am the proud owner of an MMTea mug… from which I’ll enjoy a cuppa every time I settle down to read, watch or listen to your thoughts.
A relevant quote from your birthday book, Essays by Gareth Wardell, is found within his ‘Letter to President Joe Biden’:-
“You have your hands full renouncing your predecessor’s anti-democratic, cruel, self-centred policies, reviving your nation’s well-being, spiritually and economically brought low by the Covid pandemic. I trust, I plead that halting wars is on your agenda. Peace and international friendship is to be devoutly wished if we are to concentrate our efforts on mitigating the worst of climate change that lies before humanity”.
How’s that as an example for someone wishing to adopt your maxim and ‘become a campaigner‘?
Btw, you can see that I’m revelling in your new blogging features, using bold, italic and underline with abandon! Excess even.
For no other reason that I now can, I’ve included a link to Gareth’s Grouse Beater blog. There’s many more sites that I could point your readers toward, but Gareth Wardell is the finest writer… by far.
Was it you who gave me a copy of those essays, Ron? In front of me, now. If so, thank you.