The FT has an article this morning that notes:
US oil companies stand to receive a windfall of more than $60bn this year if crude prices maintain the levels they have hit since the start of the Iran war.
Modelling by investment bank Jefferies estimates American producers will generate an extra $5bn cash flow this month alone following a roughly 47 per cent rise in oil prices since the conflict began on February 28.
Trump is, of course, arguing that this is good for the USA because he equates high corporate profitability with well-being for the people of the country. As is usual for a neoliberal, he is ignoring issues around distribution.
Oil companies are not the only beneficiaries of the war. As Reuters has reported.:
U.S. President Donald Trump's administration said it used $5.6 billion in munitions during the first two days of strikes against Iran in a report provided to U.S. congressional committees, a source familiar with the information said on Tuesday.Members of Congress, who may soon have to approve additional funding for the war, have expressed concern that the conflict will deplete U.S. military stocks at a time when the defense industry was already struggling to keep up with demand.
- The people of Iran, the Gulf states, Lebanon and Israel who are suffering the direct consequences of war, many of which, in terms of mental anguish, will last a lifetime.
- Those who are homeless.
- Those who are refugees, whom the world does not wish to know.
- The armed forces that are being asked to engage in this war, many of whom will suffer PTSD as a result.
- Those will pay the additional costs that shortages will impose.
- Those who will be asked to pay additional taxes as governments seek to recover the funds used to pay for wasteful spending on this war.
- Those who will not see the investment in the public services that they need, as politicians claim that resources are no longer available for that purpose, whether this is true or not. The cost of this wall will be seen in terms of economic austerity impacting health, education, investment in public infrastructure and much more. None of this might be necessary, but the neoliberal elite who will gain from this war will not see it that way.
- Our climate, which is being trashed by this war, which in turn provides the clearest indication of the continuing indifference of so-called leaders to the need to preserve our planet for generations to come.
- The people of the USA and Israel, who are being asked to support their fascist leaders, many of whom are responsible for war crimes.
As is glaringly apparent, Trump and his team of incompetent people did not think through the consequences of their supporting Netanyahu in this war before they pulled the trigger on the first Tomahawk missile. The price that billions of people will pay for that around the world will never be properly calculated, but the one thing that we can be sure of is that the croies of those who started it will be better off.
We need a politics for people. We need a politics of care. Right now, it feels that we are a very long way from both.
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!
Perhaps someone should suggest that the cost of the resulting wave of refugees is paid for by the US
There wouldn’t be a cost for the USA. All the evidence shows refugees bring benefits overall.
I have always held the view that people are not stupid really – they can mostly put two and two together when evidence of lying makes itself known. Trump has done something that he should not have done – he has literally dipped his toe in recent history and persecuted a war abroad. There may not be troops on the ground, yet, but the economic cost will hit home first to his supporters.
As for Europe – the fact that Russian oil now comes back into play, with all its Ukrainian ramifications – cannot be good for Euro/US relations.
Other than that, I look at what is going on and reducing it down, I just see a bunch of white people making the lives of darker skinned people impossible – again.
No wonder that – if there was other life in the universe – whoever or whatever it is, has no intention of getting in touch. I mean – would you?
Tina Brown, appearing on the BBC’s Laura Kuensberg Show this morning had what I thought were some very good insights. Trump, she said, is accustomed to controlling the narrative, flitting from Venezuela, to tariffs, to Ukraine then Greenland at will. With Iran however he does not control the narrative and although he says the US military’s awesome power has obliterated Iran’s military capability, they still control access to the Persian Gulf. He has also tacitly admitted that the mighty US military cannot make the Strait of Hormuz safe and has requested help from other Nations, saying this should be a ‘team effort’, a suggestion I find jaw droppingly laughable given his complete lack of any international team ethic to date.
How much help he gets remains to be seen, however I would hope that whatever help is forthcoming is at a price – renegotiating tariffs for instance. I would also hope that the American public, seeing the mess that Trump has caused, will give him and Trumpism and its total lack of respect the rule of law, a bloody nose in the American mid-term elections. Also that finally, the American public will see the foolishness of offering unconditional support to Israel, which is fast proving to be the biggest threat to any lasting peace in the Middle East/West and even globally.
All I see is Trumpian cynicism – he knows that if other navies go in there they face losses/risks that his forces won’t have to meet which could cost him votes with his worshippers. I also think it betrays that Trump and his er advisors are not that certain that they have nullified Iranian defence capabilities.
Trump has massively cut taxes payable by the US rich.
Presumably Trump is not going to reverse his tax cuts?
If correct, then will not the resulting Federal government creation of the money to pay for the manufacture of the requirement armaments not show that modern money creation is correct?
I appreciate that the US states individually will be introducing income to pay for the already lost federal funding, which is highly likely to hit the already financially stressed majority of the US population.
There are pictures of 2000lb bombs being loaded into B-1 bombers at ‘RAF’ Fairford in Gloucestershire before embarking on their ‘defensive’ missions slaughtering thousands of Iranians . Veteran war correspondent John Simpson – says such aerial bombardment overwhelming slaughters civilians – and cannot be tolerated.
We are doing this – while pretending we are not involved – as with Gaza. Physically sick making.
Those bombers fly over my corner of my town. One came back the other day jettisoning fuel.
So, at least one didn’t drop any bombs.
I find relief where I can. Otherwise the drone of those engines truly makes me physically sick.
I feel the same about the bases near me and their flights
OK so let’s try the counterfactual.
What would the cost of leaving the Iranian regime in place and giving them the time and space to develop nuclear weapons – which before you claim otherwise was definitely their goal. There is no other reason to enrich uranium to the levels they have otherwise, let alone have a ballistic missile program as extensive as it was.
Do you think they would suddenly:
– Stop supporting global terrorism
– Stop murdering thousands of their own citizens
– Stop believing that the only way to bring about a global Islamic caliphate and return the 12th Mahdi is to wipe out Israel
This is a regime that is directly and indirectly responsible for hundreds of thousands if not millions of deaths and the continuing instability in the middle east.
Yet in your world only the US and most especially Israel receive post after post condemning them with not a word about the true evil.
Your antisemitism is repeated and obvious but I also wonder if you are either paid or too ignorant to recognize real fascism – the kind that the Iranian regime is only too happy to promote.
Maybe you even like it – you seem to have a fondness for despotic regimes where freedom and choice is limited.
I think it helps to separate several issues that are being conflated here.
First, the Iranian regime is an authoritarian theocracy. It represses dissent, restricts freedoms and has supported armed groups across the region. None of that should be ignored or excused.
Second, criticising the actions of the United States or Israel does not imply support for the Iranian regime, nor is it antisemitic. Governments, including semi-democratic ones like that in the USA,should be open to criticism when their actions risk escalating conflict or violating international law.
Third, the question of nuclear weapons is precisely why diplomacy and international agreements have existed. The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) was designed to place strict limits on Iran’s nuclear programme with international inspection. Iran cooperated. Trump withdrew in his forts term. The fault was worth him. Despite that, there is no evidence, despite Israeli claims for 30 years, that Iran has a nuclear weapons programme. And if there is risk, it is all due to Trump: when mitigation agreements are collapsed, as he did, the risk of proliferation increases.
The real issue is not choosing between two caricatures of good and evil. It is recognising that the Middle East has been destabilised by multiple actors, and that further escalation or regime-change wars have historically made matters worse rather than better.
I suggest you try objective risk appraisal. It helps.
@Gerald wrote “to develop nuclear weapons – which before you claim otherwise was definitely their goal.”
not correct
The International Atomic Energy Agency reports that Iran has enriched uranium to 60%, they first achieved that about 20 years ago. It’s no use for a weapon, that requires about 90%. Getting from 60% to 90% is relatively trivial in comparison to getting to 60%, if they’d wanted to then they could have done it. It’s true 60% has relatively few peaceful applications and Iran doesn’t have any of them. It could be used for creating medical isotopes but there are far easier ways of doing that.
Also enriched Uranium is created in the form Uranium hexafluoride, for weapons use that has to be converted into a metal, there is no evidence of Iran developing the technology to do that and it wouldn’t have stymied them for 20 years if they had wanted to.
I also note the Iranian leadership unequivocally declared nuclear weapons un-Islamic, for all these peoples faults, they believe in their interpretation of their religion.
So what has Iran been playing at, one possibility is its along the lines of “we could if wanted to”, maybe a misjudged attempt at having a nuclear deterrent without actually having one, keep the US & Israel guessing or ‘push us and we’ll finish what we’ve started’ or simply ‘you have to treat us as a nuclear (weapons) power even if we don’t have one’. Maybe one part of the regime started it, then the “supreme leader” decided to veto it but they didn’t want to lose face by packing up what they had already achieved.
Whatever the strategy was, it has badly misfired.
“As is glaringly apparent, Trump and his team of incompetent people did not think through the consequences of their supporting Netanyahu in this war before they pulled the trigger on the first Tomahawk missile.”
Not sure I agree. I bet the Trump Organisation was very, very long on oil prices at mid-March . . . on a wider geopolitical note, from the point of view of the Israelis, this is the latest piece of the “Clean Break” (aka “Smash the Neighbours”) policy implemented by them on a document written by Richard Perle, one of Reagan’s neocon goons, after the Netanyahu crowd saw off the last possible vestige of decency for their country by shooting Rabin in ’95.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Clean_Break%3A_A_New_Strategy_for_Securing_the_Realm
The oil companies helped put him there, now he’s paying them back. What Trump didn’t realise is that government is there to take the blame for corporate corruption and greed. Their war, his problem. A smarter person would have known to say no, like Obama and Biden did.
Didn’t Milo Minderbinder profit from war in Catch 22 in the most bizarre ways
Perhaps his descendants are doing the same right now
Trump has his enrichment as a priority. Undoubtedly he will have interests in oil and munitions companies, as most probably will his family, friends and colleagues. He wanted Venezuela for the oil, Ukraine for the rare earth minerals, Greenland for the critical (Uranium) and rare earth minerals. Will Sweden be next as it already mines rare earths? China is currently the major supplier of these minerals. Trump also wants power.
Iran is oil rich, so Trump wants that too.
Trump wanted Gaza for ‘development’, ‘a riviera of the Middle East’ – many Israelis have already built houses along the Gaza strip coast. How much would Trump, Netanyahu, and indeed possibly Blair and others, enrich themselves from such development? Trump with his ‘Board of Peace’ – ? power grab.
Not all Israelis were in favour of the attacks into Gaza as noted by Richard some months ago by highlighting the letter in the FT from members of the Board of Deputies of British Jews.
Then there are the possible connections of Trump with Russia – Trump, his family and his team have direct and indirect ties with Russia – Trump allegedly has a Russian nickname (Krasnov = Red although orange would be more appropriate). Russia is gaining from the relaxation of sanctions due to the war in the Middle East. Russia and China both allegedly assist with intelligence.
Iran is seen as the aggressor, but is warfare the best way forward to a change of regime? Netanyahu wants a non-Islamic regime in Iran – Trump too. Unfortunately neither Trump nor Netanyahu think it wrong to break international law while innocent people suffer.
Most of those who suffer, whether they flee or not, are the ones who will not be enriched – they will not win from this, or any other war.
Thank you
…and even if Iran did have nuclear weapons ambitions, Trump supposedly destroyed any progress they made towards them last year. We should recognise this argument for what it is – a cover for US/Israeli aggression. If the Iranian regime survives this attack they’ll be all the more determined to get nuclear weapons in future.
It is clear that the US only started this war because Israel were going to attack anyway and that would have led to retaliation against US bases. I’ve been watching The Chris Hedges Report on YouTube, and recommend it. He and his guests believe we are all being fed propaganda, and that the truth is US/Israel are losing the war. US Bases in the Gulf have been destroyed, their radar bases have been wiped out, and Iran are exhausting supplies of interceptor missiles weakening US/Israeli defences, in advance of an attack using their latest weapons, which are far from exhausted. Their assessment was that Iran is unlikely to stop even if Trump declares victory soon. Contrary to Trump’s expectation of copying the Venezuela takeover, this war could go on and on. If so, the consequences for all of us won’t be good.
No country with nuclear weapons, except USA has ever used them, or been attacked by another country.
Ergo, if Iran did have such weapons, or ever get one, why would they attack any other country with it? And if Iran really had a nuclear bomb, would Trump and Netanyahu be bombing them?
I don’t like the Iranian government for how they treat citizens or for threatening other countries, but bombing people you don’t like just seems childish to me.
Why don’t they just sit down and talk with tea and biscuits?
There’s no sensible logic to the nuclear argument, Israel is a militarily aggressive, expansionist power with a nuclear arsenal, repeatedly sanctioned by the US. If deterrance worked then Iran and other middle east countries should be allowed nuclear weapons so they can all live in security.
What Iran shows, within US logic, is that the best way to prevent a nuclear attack is sufficient conventional firepower to take the nuclear threat out before its used (or finished) not both sides having nuclear weapons.
I recommend Malcolm Nance’s analyses. https://malcolmnance.substack.com/p/lindsey-graham-just-told-the-iranians.
https://malcolmnance.substack.com/p/us-iran-warcast-day-16-live-w-malcolm
Does Israel have nuclear weapons? Has anyone asked them…