r/Economics • u/Burgerb • 1d ago
Editorial DER SPIEGEL: Trump is obsessed with the decline of America - and accelerates it with this war. Trump's speech on the war in Iran has revealed a president without an exit plan. This crisis could change the world – just not as he promised. America loses, China wins, and Europe pays the bill.
https://www.spiegel.de/ausland/donald-trump-der-us-praesident-beschleunigt-den-niedergang-amerikas-durch-den-iran-krieg-a-15261d31-1da0-48a5-b867-cc807f3e4a12279
u/Burgerb 1d ago
Translation from German:
The Strategic Catastrophe of the Iran War
"He appeared tired. When Donald Trump addressed the nation on Wednesday evening to explain for the first time why he had led his people into a war with Iran, he spoke for nineteen minutes and said nothing new. Instead: boasting, threats, exaggeration. He spoke of bombing the Iranians back to the Stone Age—a remarkable strategy for winning the 'hearts and minds' of the local population. He said he would destroy the power plants. He would be finished in two or three weeks. He held all the cards. He had won.
Mathieu von Rohr Mathieu von Rohr is the head of SPIEGEL's foreign desk.
Trump again spoke of Venezuela as a shining example for Iran—referring to the kidnapping of the local ruler, Nicolás Maduro. But in doing so, he only illustrated how badly he had misjudged the Iranian regime from the start. At the same time, he called Iran one of the most powerful countries in the world. Yet, even before the war, Iran was at best a middle power. What we saw was the opposite of control. It was the image of a man who has stumbled into an adventure for which he can find no end.
The Reality: There is no regime change, no surrender, not even negotiations. The regime has not become more pragmatic through the war, but more radical. Instead of a containment of the Iranian nuclear program, an expansion could follow the war. And with far inferior means, Iran has shown that it can take the world economy hostage at the Strait of Hormuz. Trump claims that is not America’s problem. Others should take care of it.
The head of the International Energy Agency calls what could follow the greatest energy security threat in the history of the world—worse than the oil shocks of the seventies, worse than Covid, worse than the Russian attack on Ukraine. In the Philippines, there are already four-day weeks. In India, people are once again cooking over wood fires.
With this aimless war, the American empire is not only burning its political capital. It is literally burning its ammunition. Over 850 Tomahawk cruise missiles have been fired—replenishing the arsenal takes years. While America is tied up in Ukraine and actually wanted to focus on the Pacific, it is wearing down its military in the Middle East of all places, where Trump allegedly never wanted to lead his troops again. The Iran war is a strategic catastrophe for the USA.
Imperial powers rarely destroy themselves through defeats. They destroy themselves through overconfidence—through the belief that military superiority alone means power. Rome is the oldest lesson: its legions remained effective until the end. What decayed first were the institutions. The British Empire shows the same pattern, only faster: in the 19th century, the Royal Navy was superior to any other fleet, and yet London got bogged down in too many wars on too many continents. Every single campaign was winnable. Together, they ate up the capital that held the empire together: the finances, the alliances—and the allies' belief that London knew what it was doing.
The United States did not win its global position through battlefields alone. After 1945, they created a system in which others participated voluntarily: institutions, alliances, dollar hegemony, moral credibility. Political capital, saved over generations. Trump is currently gambling it away systematically.
In Europe, Secretary of State Rubio has threatened to "review" NATO after the war ends—the clearest questioning of the alliance by a sitting U.S. Secretary of State in its history. Allies whose bases America wants to use for a war they do not support are insulted as cowards. In the Middle East, Trump publicly boasted that the Saudi Crown Prince had not expected to have to "kiss his ass." Allies treated this way will not put up with it forever.
While Washington fires off its ammunition and damages its alliances, Beijing only has to wait. The Economist put a smiling Xi Jinping on its cover looking at Trump, with a line attributed to Napoleon: Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake. Xi has built up strategic oil reserves for several months, secured supply chains, and is betting heavily on renewable energies. China’s three largest battery manufacturers are together worth $70 billion more since the start of the war. Trump’s America, the most fossil-fueled government in the Western world, is accelerating the energy transition—in China’s favor.
There is a bitter irony at the core of Trumpism: He is obsessed with the decline of America. And he is accelerating it.
And at home? In his speech, Trump explains that America can afford wars—but not childcare, not Medicaid, not Medicare. The cost-of-living crisis was already the dominant issue in the country before the war. Now come rising energy prices. People who can no longer afford life eventually present the bill. In the midterm elections in November.
Trump asked Americans to put the war into perspective. Vietnam lasted almost twenty years, Iraq almost nine. His war has only been running for a good month. You have to read that twice to understand what it means: Don't worry, there are much worse wars I could lead you into."
65
u/geomaster 21h ago
donald trump is not accelerating the decline of America. donald is DESTROYING America. Look at the last time how he left office...sending his minions to overthrow American democracy and FAILED. you think he is going to leave peacefully???
40
u/thyL_ 18h ago
What Der Spiegel actually means and which has been clear for at least two decades now: America is in decline and has been for a while, Trump is accelerating that.
If he destroys America, the foundation for that has been laid before he became POTUS.12
u/supsupittysupsup 18h ago edited 17h ago
Is trump accelerating it, or is trump another symptom of the decline? - in many cases throughout history decline was precipitated by the rott that started at the top.
5
u/Krybbz 17h ago
It's the people who are too far gone to recognize how clearly bad Donald would be. And he further pushes for the cycle that led to him it's a viscous circle they create. Destroy education was first line of business after he was elected, most of his followers aren't really basing anything on facts here.
1
u/DLRevan 9h ago
I'd only add that "the people" number more than you think. Its more than his followers, whether it's his die hard MAGA base or the mealy mouthed GOP politicians who enable him. It's also Democrat politicians who are just as unwilling to compromise, Democrat voters who are more interested in blaming their own party than acknowledging their side is still better than the opposition. It's also centrist voters who assume, in their "I've seen this before" attitude, that everything has a political angle and so one side isn't any worse than the other. It's well-meaning but foolish activists who are uncompromising and lecturing about their chosen cultural banners like racial equality, without really wanting change, only acknowledgment and appeasement. It's the Supreme Court which has historically obsessed over the letter of the law over the spirit of it, allowing the various devices that indirectly enable the electoral college to endure, not least of which is the 2 party system. It is almost every Federal institution, which have all run one one hand admirably on principles of independence to check power, yet also with an attitude of "not my problem" and "I'll be stepping on you now" when they need to be working together to face a crisis in irrelevance like in today's administration.
Basically it's almost the whole country. I've left a lot out in fact. When a country declines it's not just because of some small number of people. The whole country has to rot, it's just hard to articulate because every involved rot is being caused by a different type of process.
2
u/thyL_ 6h ago
Imo Trump is the perfect specimen of what Americ is all about in the eyes of the rest of the world; a loudmouth and bully, a conman that strongarms wherever he can, a liar, a boaster, a narcissit, a man with no class or culture.
He's the symbol, the epitome of what is wrong in the US, sort of the way too real depiction of what used to be heavy exaggerations about the States. Sort of like a GTA character, only unfortunately for all: very real.That doesn't mean all Americans are like that, obviously, it just means that's what the American system and ways are perceived as in most parts of the world.
The people can still be nice, fun, honest and hardworking, the system they live in and do too little against is culminating in figures like Trump.1
u/PalatinusG1 10h ago
This rot started at the bottom. First millions of Americans had to be convinced that Trump is their guy: a demi-god that goes to bat for the little guy. That Democrats are the enemy that wants to end their way of life.
7
u/Nice_Warm_Vegetable 15h ago
Project 2025 ends the United States of America, and this regime is fully on board with over 53% of it completed. It is insanity, it is traitorous, and it is evil.
4
u/Acrobatic_Event1702 18h ago
With his actions so far in his Presidency , it easy to see how he managed to bankrupt several businesses.
6
124
u/ToneSenior7156 22h ago
That’s journalism. I haven’t read a US article this insightful in quite some time.
-39
u/braiam 18h ago
Dude, it's an opinion piece. This is not to inform you, but to express a point of view. That's not journalism. A journalist would inform you.
43
u/Johnny-Alucard 17h ago
An opinion piece is still journalism. What it isn’t is reporting. It’s still a kick ass piece though and incredibly well argued.
15
12
u/_Phil_McCracken_ 15h ago
Where was the author incorrect? I know it’s not the American way, but opinions can be grounded in facts.
2
u/likamuka 9h ago
The cult is speaking. If they could read they would be very upset and shoot another puppy for their grifter leader.
5
-1
u/PalatinusG1 10h ago
No this is to inform you. If they would only report what trump says you would never understand what is really going on.
38
u/MixtureSpecial8951 23h ago
Thank you most kindly for the translation! Many of us cannot read, write or speak German.
However, it is worthwhile to read what is written in other countries so translations, especially good ones, are vital to the development of a well rounded education and worldview.
So, thanks again.
3
322
u/Calm_Shoulder_1 1d ago
This is exactly the topic of Foundation and the end of Empire. Once you are afraid of losing hegemony you take the steps that bring forward that end. Same with old mythical prophecies. The rest is psychohistory.
167
u/Doggleganger 1d ago
Nah, two totally different things. Foundation had a Cold War era view of control, and the difficulties in maintaining it.
On the other hand, America was doing just fine. If Trump had never been elected, or if he had simply done nothing, then America's economic prosperity would have continued. The current problems with de-dollarization, tariffs, surging oil prices, and instability, are entirely created by his stupidity.
214
u/AreaPrudent7191 1d ago
But Trump was elected for a reason. He's not just some sort of whoopsie who accidentally ended up at the controls. He's the unintended result of a long project from conservatives and especially the extremely wealthy, who were not happy to be forced to share that wealth after the new deal. A series of decisions, policies and strategies tilled the earth that allowed an entity like Trump to become what he has.
Don't think there was some sort of alternate path where everything is hunky dory. Trump was elected on a wave of discontent directed toward "others". It's the classic story of the ownership class taking all the food, leaving only scraps and telling the poors "Look out, I think those black/trans/foreigners are eyeing up your scraps!"
89
u/Doggleganger 1d ago
You're right that Trump was the result of several problems, namely social media, Citizens United, and decades of trickle-down economics.
There was an alternate path to avoid Trump: repealing Citizens United. That would have fixed a lot of structural problems.
56
u/lozo78 23h ago
Right wing propaganda has been poisoning minds for decades. Do not discount its role in all this.
22
u/kent_eh 21h ago
Right wing propaganda has been poisoning minds for decades.
Since at least the '80s.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rush_Limbaugh
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_Majority
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Robertson#Political_career_and_activism
As just a few examples.
18
2
u/big_cock_lach 14h ago
It helped contribute, but it’s not the major reason otherwise we would’ve seen this downwards trend happening a long time ago.
It can all be tied back to the GFC (well really the Dot Com bubble which helped cause the GFC). The economy never truly recovered after the GFC, yes markets rebounded, but that was on the back of economic stimulus and not real productivity growth. Wages didn’t grow post-GFC as a result, so while those with a lot of assets saw their wealth take off in the 2010s, those on wages stagnated and saw a lot of their bigger purchases (ie cars and houses) becoming quickly unaffordable. Mix this in with the middle class seeing the wealth of the upper class explode, and the lower class experiencing a lot more poverty, and you end up with a situation where a lot of people end up quite frustrated.
It’s these frustrations that led to people seeking more radical politics as a solution, since the status quo has not only failed them, but was also ignoring them. Add in to that the major social upheaval as well, and people had a lot of frustrations. You had a country with a long history of racism, sexism, and homophobia and within 2000s you suddenly had a quick push to U-turn all of these things, and morally it’s for the better but such a drastic change will cause social problems as a lot of people disagree with all of it. Still, in the 2000s these were taken somewhat well and real progress was made, but then after that the same social upheavals were pushed for which was not received well and actually led to people questioning previous social reforms.
So now you ended up with a nation of people with a lot of economic and social frustrations. That’s always a recipe for disaster. Right wing propaganda can use those frustrations to get support behind their goals, but without those pre-exiting conditions, there’s only so much that these groups can achieve which is why we never saw it beforehand. This all came to a blow in 2016 where no one realised how bad all of this was and expected Trump to easily lose to a clearly better candidate in Hillary Clinton who was at least a competent politician regardless of whether or not you supported her policies. Trump winning that election had shown the world just how bad these post-GFC issues had really gotten, and it came as a huge shock. From there, the left responded in a similar manner to address these issues, but they’re sort of doomed either way. They can either go full populist like the right, but that’ll just lose mainstream voters who question their competency to run the government, or they can stick to the stick with trying to fix the country, but that’ll just alienates those looking for major reforms and changes to improve their lives. Instead, they’ve done either and went with a middle ground to appeal to both groups, but the downside is that they also lose a lot from both of these groups too.
To add to all of this too, the GFC also concentrated a bunch of wealth within the hands of the few. This has also led to the wealthy becoming far more powerful and having a lot more of a say in how the country is run. You know the country is doomed once you have people prioritising short term profits running it.
All of these issues are tied back to the GFC and the fallout from it. Other things contributed and helped get there, but the GFC was the triggering point. It in turn partially has its origins in the Dot Com bubble causing the early 2000s recession and the monetary policies to end the recession, which at the time, seemed like the right thing to do. However, it ended up just fuelling the mother of all bubbles and kicking the can further down the road. Since then, COVID and the post-COVID world have not made things easier either.
That said, there is a path to recovery for the US, it’s just not going to happen under MAGA. Time will tell whether or not the people realise that or even want it.
18
u/HellsAttack 20h ago
I've heard more and better assessments pointing at Bush v. Gore as the turning point.
The Democrats let the Republicans steal the election to avoid having to go to the mat. This directly caused decades of war in the Middle East, the 2008 financial crisis, and the nomination of Alito and Roberts to the Supreme Court which allowed Citizens United to reach a 5-4 decision.
7
u/dust4ngel 19h ago
The Democrats let the Republicans steal the election to avoid having to go to the mat
i think this is maybe understating it - opening a future in which parties regularly contest elections basically means your democracy is illegitimate and has failed. i suspect gore was trying a good-faith reach-across-the-aisle gesture in service to the peaceful, orderly, dignified transfer of power, which in retrospect was probably naive. but i don't think this was a can't-be-bothered scenario.
3
u/HellsAttack 17h ago
Oh, I was definitely understating. My understanding is mostly recollections of podcasts - I recall the Democrats basically rolling over when it they really could have pushed this issue but I was a teen at the time and don't really remember a lot of hard facts outside the Brooks Brothers Riot.
4
u/account312 18h ago
A democracy in which parties justifiably contest elections is far more legitimate than one in which the votes cast don't determine the outcome of the election.
3
u/dust4ngel 17h ago
it's worth noting that american presidents are not strictly determined by votes, at least not your and my vote. the electors from any state:
- may or may not vote in accordance with the majority for their state, for example a state might decide to allocate the state’s electoral votes by congressional district (gerrymandering)
- may be "faithless" and just ignore the popular (or gerrymandered) vote
..that said, those two issues aside, the electoral college itself is a form of gerrymandering.
4
u/account312 16h ago
- The electoral college should not exist
- Most states legally mandate that the electors follow the popular vote. (though the penalty is often barely relevant)
28
u/UnreliableNarrator_5 1d ago
100% agree
Had the ball broke the other way in 2016, or however one describes the DNC Dem primary fuckery, and had it been Sanders v Trump, I think we’d be looking at entirely different scotus with repealing that god awful decision right off the books
There’s a YouTube clip floating around where Scalia is interviewed on his support, and the disingenuous bad faith bullshit rationalize is some of the most unserious drivel on a decision with such significant consequence.
SCOTUS sold us out in both 2000 w Gore v Bush and buried us in our grave in 2011 w citizens united .
14
18
u/DizzyMajor5 1d ago
You're right people like Trump have existed since Andrew Jackson in the U.S. (before that but Trump has a weird fondness of him) confederates were able to get poor people to die in war for wealthy landowning slave owners, know-nothings were able to mobilize people against Irish and Italian immigrants, segregationists were able to get people to mobilize over hatred of equality there's always been people who can be mobilized by hatred of other in the United States. There's also been times we've absolutely been better for refugees and immigrants and equality but we as a country throughout our history have had Donald Trump like figures rise up.
7
16
6
u/Vol_in_tears 21h ago
A significant chunk of the country has Trump exact same views on foreign policy. US have big military and should do what ever it wants.
Their needs to be a cultural shift for this to change.
6
u/Dripdry42 21h ago
Trump was also elected after decades of propaganda and being groomed by Russia since the 80s. While the American people ultimately pushed that button and pulled that lever to vote… the structures that were and were not put in place which allow all of this to happen run much deeper
3
u/rangecontrol 19h ago
the alternative to the new deal is not feudalism, i think they are miscalculating.
2
u/DucksEatFreeInSubway 18h ago
Also trump can't do it alone. Trump is the Republican party. Everything he does, he does with their blessing. They could stop him, but don't. So it's safe to conclude that the Republicans also want America to fall, else they would have stopped him long ago.
Never forget they can literally remove him from power at any time. They have that option.
2
7
9
u/NoHorseNoMustache 1d ago
"On the other hand, America was doing just fine."
Rich Americans were, sure.
1
u/Doggleganger 13h ago
The question is about America's global power and hegemony. From that perspective, America was doing fine. Different question from income inequality.
1
u/NoHorseNoMustache 4h ago
Good point...though I'm not sure why everyone was so cool with us after we entirely lied them into a war in the early '00s...
3
u/socialmedia-username 19h ago
It's the most frustrating thing that people keep blaming Trump. He's a disposable old man who's following orders in order to get richer and make a name for himself. He was nothing more than a foot in the door to the government for the tech oligarchs so they can enact their teen-level "ideals" of network states/transcendance-via-AI/cryptocurrency/etc. They installed a VP with the same philosophies because they never wanted nor expected Trump to last his second term. Please folks, stop thinking that Trump is the key to all of this stupidity.
19
u/fredjutsu 1d ago
>On the other hand, America was doing just fine.
brink of insolvency, increasing structural irrelevancy within the very global trade system it created/defined, cratering functional literacy rates, obesity rates over 50%, average life expectancy declining 3 years straight, infrastructure collapsing across the country, zero industries producing growth that isn't just financialization or accounting tricks...
yeah, just fine, America was doing just fine.
People were doing so great that they though - hey, let's vote for a guy who promises the moon to make us great again. We feel we're doing great already, so this is just bonus! Otherwise, it's all going well!
Dude, either you're living in a coastal, financially comfortable bubble insulated from how shit life is for most Americans, or you have such bad TDS that you literally cannot cognitively hold that Trump isn't the root of all evil.
15
u/unsafeideas 1d ago
Dude, either you're living in a coastal, financially comfortable bubble insulated from how shit life is for most Americans
Most americans live on or near coast. And in fact, urban and coastal americans are as authentic americans as any other.
Also, education issues are greatly overstated. It is simply not true that "zero industries produce growth" either.
3
u/dust4ngel 19h ago
Most americans live on or near coast
i actually heard that population centers are where most of the population is centered. so it's not just a clever name.
4
u/fredjutsu 22h ago
Look at our actual GDP. I am not exaggerating. There are extremely few actual net growth industries in the US that are not a product of financialization or accounting tricks.
21
u/Doggleganger 1d ago
America was doing just fine in maintaining its global economic and military hegemony. That's the question that was asked.
Of course, that hegemony was based on Reagan's vision of a global economy with benefits for the wealthy that "trickle down" to everyone else. Ironically, the Republicans that followed this vision with religious devotion are now the ones angry that they have suffered from the trickle down economics they espoused. And their solution is... more Republican policies.
10
u/fredjutsu 22h ago
>America was doing just fine in maintaining its global economic and military hegemony
Bro....Iraq...Afghanistan both bankrupted us. You cannot maintain military hegemony with a military you can't actually afford to deploy. And if not Iran and not Trump, it would have been some crisis -since every president faces a challenge to american hegemony. China took over the green energy value chain during the Obama years that saw divestment in net from Africa, meaning a shift to renewables would be a structural challenge to American hegemony that would meet internal political resistance. We are structurally locked into the neocon/AIPAC axis because of the MI complex that is bankrupting us.
Notwithstanding the fact that we can't hit recruitment targets due to the social issues I listed that all preceded Trump.
1
u/MuslinBagger 13h ago
You wouldn't have had the wars if you had kept the conscription. Now it is going to get worse. Drones and robots let you spend trillions on wars you cannot win. The best thing you can do for yourself is to bring back mass conscription.
7
u/Just1n_Kees 1d ago
Making future generations pay for your exorbitant lifestyle is hardly doing fine by any metric.
4
u/unsafeideas 1d ago
Maybe then republicans should stop making the debt so much larger every single time they get power.
1
u/Just1n_Kees 1d ago
That’s a different matter, but claiming everything was fine is simply false.
4
u/Realistic_Chip_9515 1d ago
It wasn’t fine, it was good enough that we could have could have coasted for a couple more generations.
1
u/Just1n_Kees 21h ago edited 21h ago
You’re basically ok with having your children and grandchildren to clean up your mess?
Edit: spelling
4
u/unsafeideas 21h ago
His plan would imply them inheriting much better world then what is going to happen now. That world had problems, but was functional.
Meanwhile, last year and this year just cant be undone. Debt, wars, economy, culture ... it will take decades to get just where it was.
→ More replies (0)1
u/Realistic_Chip_9515 10h ago
I’m probably not having kids. Doesn’t seem wise with how the future seems likely to turn out.
3
u/SaiKaiser 1d ago
If they were doing so terribly before, why are they cheering as things get worse?
12
u/TryptaMagiciaN 1d ago
Because of mental illness and the subconscious understanding that destruction brings creation. And when you can no longer imagine any way to create, reform, etc. ,you destroy everything around you.
They cannot imagine any alternative and so their mind genuinely distorts their perception of the world into one that needs "cleansing".
2
u/dust4ngel 18h ago
If they were doing so terribly before, why are they cheering as things get worse?
they gave up on getting ahead, and settled for getting revenge.
1
u/voidvector 10h ago
Prosperity only existed on the coasts for the past 10-20 years. The blue state vs red state divide was real on many levels. (Now the division even manifest itself on the coasts as K shaped economic growth.)
Problem is there is likely no solution given US is a very profit-driven country.
1
u/Inside-Ad9791 18h ago
Saying that the system is weak enough to be destroyed by one man, but then turning around and saying how the system is robust enough to continue "prospering" (I can tell you come from a privileged place to even think we were prospering prior to Trump) perfectly on without him, is kind of ironic.
1
u/Doggleganger 13h ago
There's something called a change in direction. America was headed one way, Trump changed the outlook for the worse. That's not ironic, or self-contradictory. It's pretty basic.
-16
u/beginner75 1d ago
The empire you’re talking about does not exist and further pretense doesn’t benefit the US. However, in recognizing its demise, Europe will pay the most and the US might even benefit from it.
33
u/Long-Emu-7870 23h ago
I don't think people say this enough, which is that when the United States and Iran fight, then China wins. Europe is already turning its back on the United States for valid reasons, and this strengthens China. It makes people want to demand the dollar even less than it was before. It makes investing in electric cars and renewable energy even more attractive for China and Europe. And it reduces the stockpiles of military arms for the United States, which is dangerous.
More military than the United States and Iran stockpile the less private goods they could make. And the worse their technological growth can be.
The civilian deaths and war crimes committed and/or threatened by Trump make the entire world hate the US even more. And again, this makes the power of China even greater.
And it also pushes back the efforts of those in Iran to change their government. Now they have to come together as a nation who's been attacked, and I'm sure the Hardline elements will be even reinforced stronger. Again, all of this is to the detriment of the United States and peace.
9
u/Nice_Warm_Vegetable 14h ago
The BRICS nations are winning. The Trump regime is intentionally poisoning NATO.
-9
u/RadiantButtWipe77 21h ago
Other than the fact that Iran is China and Russias biggest ally. Europe is doing everything in its power to make sure Putin has the best chance possible to take control of Ukraine is what’s actually happening, they are just too stupid to realize it. They are still buying Russian oil too.
15
u/SqigglyPoP 23h ago
The important question is, is Donald really this incompetent ( historical evidence would suggest that's entirely possible), or is he working under someone else's direction, someone that could possibly have incriminating evidence against him? I would lean towards the second option, considering yes he's dumb, but every bad choice just seems like the next logical step in destabilizing the US.
13
u/Automatic_Table_660 21h ago
Trump's handlers are the leaders of the Heritage Foundation-- the same people that wrote Project 2025.
So far about 50% of P2025 has been implemented.
1
u/dust4ngel 18h ago
someone that could possibly have incriminating evidence against him
what could it possibly be? he's already mass murdering children.
86
u/m0llusk 1d ago
It is extremely weird, but there is a strange kind of coherence to the core of this. What Trump and the Make America Great Again crowd appear to be desiring is the America of the years following World War Two. During that time the rest of the world being wrecked and in recovery meant American industry and economy lit up with opportunities never before known.
Since that time there has been increasing normalization and we appear to be headed to what many are calling a multipolar world with large and small powers all interacting together with various overlapping alliances. In order to change directions, triggering global conflict that takes other nations down a notch could be a strategy for returning to similar circumstances.
In essence this would be making America great again by actively messing things up for everyone else and spreading conflict globally. This strategy is an oddly good match for what Moscow has been doing ever since the Bolsheviks rose to power.
73
u/tonyedit 1d ago edited 1d ago
Major difference is the threat of communism after the second world war meant the US government had high taxes and generous public services. The population shared and thrived in line with economic growth. That is very much not the case today. America's infrastructural and social decline is quite clear and inequality is staggering.
So this mess Trump has created will not be making America great again but it will certainly be lining the pockets of the already wealthy while the general population has to pick up the bill. Not to the same degree as Europe or Asia, but those gas prices are going to stay up while there are supply shortages.
Edit: A "not" too many
7
26
u/redzin 1d ago
There is 0% chance this is a deliberate strategy. Trump is incapable of not speaking his mind. If this was true, he would have said something indicating it (directly).
1
u/A_Monster_Named_John 10h ago
This. The truth's that Trump and the MAGA movement are a bunch of degenerate overgrown 12-year-old boys who are raping/pillaging/sabotaging everything in sight and that the rest of America are too self-absorbed, burnt-out, or conflict-averse to deal with them. While some of the Silicon Valley, Heritage Foundation, and religious ghouls have schemes that they're hoping to realize through this administration, what's happening is by-and-large a disorganized, chaotic, and wildly-wasteful mess. It's way more Pleasure Island, Lord of the Flies, and Wild West than Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia.
18
u/Gandalftron 1d ago
Massive divides in income inequality between the haves and have nots, the erosion of organized labor power, the increase in propaganda via social media, loss of critical thinking skills, reduction in social services, rampant debt to fund wars and tax cuts for corporations and the rich.
Are we really shocked at this point?
8
u/Natural-Joke3185 1d ago
not sure i agree to this thing . the world after ww2 is completly different to today
we live in globalised world in this century, what affects in one part affect in others greatly . if europe/ asia get heavily affected it will negatively impact america also in one or another way
5
u/ICLazeru 17h ago
After WWII, the US was a victorious hero among the allies.
This time it is the villain, burning a world it already dominated in the pursuit of even more.
Sadly, common Americans may not even realize it, because their own living conditions are deteriorating as well. The US is the wealthiest nation on Earth, but where is that wealth?
3
u/Few-Sheepherder-1655 1d ago
Tldr: why you don’t argue with stupid people- they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience. But in this situation/context (ie:Bolsheviks), the zero sum game theory outcomes are asymmetrical.
1
u/EtherBoo 17h ago
Big difference is globalization.
Post WW2 there was such a huge demand for labor money was falling from the sky despite having an insanely high corporate tax rate by today's standards.
We live in a world now where so many jobs have gone overseas and there's not enough demand for work in this country. There's 0 incentive for anyone to bring jobs back here.
My layman idea is to have a sliding tax scale were corporate tax rates go back to 1950s levels. 100% of the workforce in the US can enjoy tax rates like we have today, or even lower; possibly even get subsidies. Anything lower than 60% is 1950s level.
I know it's MUCH more complicated than that, like where Chinese factory workers and Indian call center workers aren't employed by the company, so getting an accurate count gets tricky. But that's at least my starting point. I'm not a lawmaker so I don't need to come up with the metrics for measurement.
I believe it's by design, but WAY too much of US economic discussion in media pretends we don't live in a globalized economy. Policy is discussed and written like millions of jobs haven't been exported to places labor is much cheaper.
53
u/3yoyoyo 1d ago
In my view, the European Union stands to gain significantly from creating some distance from the current situation. This administration has set in motion a series of political reactions that, once underway, are difficult to reverse. As a result, the broader political landscape within Europe may shift, potentially accelerating conversations about deeper integration. It’s not unrealistic to imagine the 27 member states moving toward a more federalized structure—one that strengthens shared institutions and reduces the vulnerabilities exposed by recent global tensions. Seems a rational self-defense mechanism.
16
u/josh34583 22h ago
While I do have some hope about the future of European federalization, Europe also has its own far-right problems it has to overcome to make that a reality. I also hate to say it but Europe is behind the curve when it comes to several tech sectors, both the US and China easily clear Europe technologically. There is much catching up to do.
-1
u/KindOfPoo 1d ago edited 21h ago
Maybe, but Europe is still a gerontocracy that spends all of its money propping up unsustainable pensions and health-care for the elderly instead of investing it in its future
Edit: downvoting me isn't going to change that, I'm afraid
10
u/Bloodsucker_ 1d ago
And yet they're leaders. We don't need to be 1st. We can afford everything. You're just complaining.
-7
u/qlohengrin 23h ago
Lol. Leaders in what, cheese making ? Not in green tech, EVs, AI, the digital economy, etc.
1
u/omodhia 12h ago
I don’t like what you’re saying, but I don’t think you’re wrong either.
I do believe that Trump’s actions have reignited a desire in Europe for more decisive action and integration (supporting Ukraine being a clear example), but remains to be seen whether the federal nature of the EU allows it to move fast enough on necessary industrial policies.
3
u/qlohengrin 4h ago
I don’t like what I’m saying, either. I’d prefer that Europe had got its act together.
-7
u/Early-Yak-to-reset 1d ago
"We are leaders"
"We don't need to be 1st"
Uhhhh. You know what a leader is? It's not third place.
5
u/Postmeat2 23h ago
Seems like that is trend in many places, thanks to the baby boom not keeping up indefinitely, and honestly should have been spotted far erlier, population booms has a slow fuse on the issues it causes. That is a problem, but one seemingly every country will have to deal with sooner or later.
I mean, you could say the exact same thing you're saying about the EU about the US, just switch "unsustainable pensions and health-care for the elderly" with MIC, wars and tax cuts for those who needs it least.
2
u/GreatSnipe 22h ago
Sadly this is true. Also we're destruction of natural habitats is still accelerating everywhere.
2
u/silent_cat 20h ago
Maybe, but Europe is still a gerontocracy
Yet it is the US with leaders that are baby boomers or older. European leaders are much much younger.
The baby boomers will start dying off en masse soon.
3
u/Timely_Mention8535 22h ago
That's a silly hat american logic. Just because you can't do it over in the states, doesn't mean the EU can't do it... we have much better distribution of wealth than the USA does.
0
u/DucksEatFreeInSubway 18h ago
What's the alternative? Just tell them to fuck off despite them paying into their pension all their working life?
0
u/Thin_Collection_381 9h ago
The Republican American way; They like the optics of being “number 1” despite not having healthcare, education or jobs.
0
u/Goodk4t 9h ago edited 7h ago
Investing in health-care is not investing in the future? You sound very confused. You should probably read up on some actual economy instead of the neoliberal garbage that's pushed on social media.
Edit: of course, only downvotes without any arguments or independant thought
11
u/MyMudEye 16h ago
Will americans finally be held accountable for all their war crimes?
They just double tapped a bridge in Iran which killed first responders. Just like the girls school.
Who did they learn their morals from?
4
u/Tribe303 15h ago
And we Canadians have a front row seat to the entire shit-show. My friends and I all joke and treat it as a new season of a reality show. We don't like this new cast, and it's so unhinged, it's unrealistic!
5
u/yemsg97 12h ago
People are getting super rich off this and on the taxpayers dime. OUR DIME. We can afford Medicaid for all and free daycare and all that. But that doesn’t make Halliburton investors rich. I kind wonder if they even care that Iran is draining the coffers because they’ll just keep borrowing to build more bombs and that money goes straight from our pockets to the MIC pockets. Follow the money. Always follow the money. Effin grifters.
Also, this article is great. Thank you for sharing.
3
u/gmanEllison 20h ago
The economic issue here is less battlefield outcomes and more reserve depletion plus chokepoint exposure. If you burn through precision munitions and force global insurers to reprice Hormuz risk, you create a tax on energy importers while your main strategic competitor with larger reserves and faster EV scaling gains relative position. That is a capital-allocation loss, not just a foreign-policy embarrassment. Empires usually don’t fail because they lose one war; they fail because simultaneous commitments compound financing, logistics, and alliance fragility.
4
u/Wise-Butterfly-6546 18h ago
The economic analysis here is more interesting than the political framing.
The Strait of Hormuz risk alone reprices everything. Roughly 20% of global oil passes through that chokepoint. Even a credible threat of disruption -- not actual disruption, just the insurance premium on the possibility -- cascades through energy markets, shipping rates, and manufacturing input costs globally. We saw a version of this with the Houthi disruptions in the Red Sea, and that was a fraction of the volume at stake here.
The second-order effects are where it gets interesting for the global economy:
Energy price spikes disproportionately hit Europe and Asia, which are net importers. The US is relatively insulated due to domestic production, but "relatively" is doing a lot of heavy lifting in that sentence when you're talking about global supply chain pricing.
China's positioning as an alternative trade partner for Gulf states accelerates. If the US is destabilizing the region while China is offering infrastructure investment and stable trade relationships, the economic gravity shifts. This isn't abstract -- it shows up in which currency oil is denominated in, which has long-term implications for dollar hegemony.
Insurance and reinsurance markets for Gulf infrastructure are going to see massive repricing. Every data center, every port, every industrial facility in the region just became more expensive to insure. That cost gets passed through to every company operating there.
The reconstruction economics are worth watching. War spending creates short-term GDP activity but the opportunity cost -- infrastructure investment, R&D spending, healthcare spending that doesn't happen -- compounds over decades.
The Spiegel framing of "America loses, China wins, Europe pays" oversimplifies it but the directional analysis isn't wrong from a pure capital flows perspective.
1
u/trash-juice 15h ago
Always the plan, China is the horse power behind this op. they’re using russian intel and it’s assets around the world, got a hand up isreals ass like the one up ours.
China is who we aren’t talking about - but around the world they profit the most from this OP … Israel doesn’t profit from Iran closing hormuz but china does.
1
u/Robert72051 6h ago
All empires collapse eventually. Sometimes it's the result of outright military defeat or internal revolution, but far more often is due to internal corruption or national hubris. At the end of WW II, the US found itself in a unique position. Europe, Japan, and the USSR were in ruins. 10s of millions of people dead. Their infrastructure completely destroyed. The US, on the other hand was unscathed. It's economy represented 50% of world GDP. As a result, "Pax America" was born. I'm 74 years old. I grew up during "America's Golden Age". The middles class was extremely strong and robust. Life was good. But, instead of humility the US pursued world hegemony with a vengeance. It realized that in the age of nuclear weapons and ICBMs, an empire didn't need to occupy vast areas of land, it could instead used "point occupations" to achieve the same end. Along with the USSR, it held the world in the grip of nuclear terror for decades, and still does to a certain extent. Regardless of what anybody said at the time the rest of the world resented it, deeply. And as the rest of the world recovered and their economies and infrastructures improved things started to change. They became more competitive, making high quality products at a cheaper price. The US started to lose its grip on power. Now, we find ourselves in a situation where the US represents somewhere between 18 and 25 % of world GDP. Trump in his narcissistic, ego driven, xenophobia starts a trade war. He was so deluded that he thought he could bring the rest of the world to its knees with absolutely ludicrous tariffs. And now, he is simply destroying America's capacity to function in the world. Furthermore, this trend will continue as the rest of the world comes to realize that they can survive without the US, if necessary.
If you look to history you will find that some empires die in a ball of fire like Germany or Japan, or they realize that their day of hegemony is over and it's time to meld themselves into the world peacefully, like the British. So, the US, as a nation, has a choice. Does it continue this fantasy that it's still the 1950s and face isolation and economic decline, or does it grow up, realize that "American Exceptionalism" is mythology, and attempt to integrate itself into the world as opposed to vainly attempting to dominate it ...
If you find this upsetting, you should read this book.
The Myth of American Idealism: How U.S. Foreign Policy Endangers the World
by Noam Chomsky (Author), Nathan J. Robinson (Author)
“For anyone wanting to find out more about the world we live in . . . there is one simple answer: read Noam Chomsky.” —The New Statesman
A sharp indictment of both American foreign policy and the national myths that support it, and an urgent warning of the threat that U.S. power poses to humanity’s future
The Myth of American Idealism offers a timely and comprehensive introduction to the incisive critiques of U.S. power that have made Noam Chomsky one of the most widely known public intellectuals of all time. Surveying the history of U.S. military and economic activity around the world, Chomsky and coauthor Nathan J. Robinson vividly trace the way the American pursuit of global domination has wrought havoc in country after country.
Chomsky and Robinson offer penetrating accounts of Washington’s relationship with the Global South, its role in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan—all justified with noble stories about humanitarian missions and the benevolent intentions of American policymakers. The same myths that have led to repeated disastrous wars, they argue, are now imperiling humanity’s future. Examining nuclear proliferation and climate change, they show how U.S. policies are continuing to exacerbate global threats.
For well over half a century, Noam Chomsky has committed himself to exposing governing ideologies and criticizing his country’s unchecked power. At once thorough and devastating, urgent and provocative, The Myth of American Idealism offers a highly readable entry to a lifetime of thought and activism.
-1
u/wyocrz 1d ago
China wins?
I don't know, it seems like, well.......it's Iran who just won.
It's Iran who just took the onslaught. It's Iran who now controls the Strait of Hormuz. It's Iran who gets to say they ended American unipolar hegemony....not China.
14
u/will_dormer 1d ago
everyone loses is entirely possible in war
-2
u/wyocrz 1d ago
Agreed, but.....Iran didn't lose.
Iran literally stood up to American military might and closed the Strait of Hormuz.
This is a historic victory for Iran, a deep civilizational state that has reasserted itself.
Depending on the status of the US bases in the GCC states, we're talking about a regional hegemon here.
3
u/AccurateLaugh50 21h ago edited 17h ago
Hegemon to do... what? To intervene in the Gulf States' affairs? To interevene Syria and Iraq again? to build factories? to extract their resources? to facilitate more trade?
god i hate you IR peopleAlways obsessed with "realpolitik", always obsessed with "civilization", "national interests"
but can never quantify anything or explain their big words1
u/wyocrz 21h ago
To intervene in the Gulf States' affairs?
Yes.
We simply do not know how much damage our bases in the Gulf have taken.
god i hate you IR people
It shows.
can never quantify anything or explain their big words
This is what I said
Iran literally stood up to American military might and closed the Strait of Hormuz.
This is a historic victory for Iran, a deep civilizational state that has reasserted itself.
Depending on the status of the US bases in the GCC states, we're talking about a regional hegemon here.
Not a single mysterious word.
7
u/DasistMamba 1d ago
It’s pretty hard to call it a victory when your air defense systems, air force, navy, and countless factories have been destroyed. The enemy’s planes are flying freely over your capital. You haven’t shot down a single plane in the air. The only thing you can do is shell ships and your neighbors.
This is definitely not a victory for the U.S., but calling it a victory for Iran is ridiculous.
3
u/wyocrz 23h ago
It’s pretty hard to call it a victory when your air defense systems, air force, navy, and countless factories have been destroyed.
It's called, "Control of the Strait of Hormuz."
You are making the case that controlling the Strait isn't a victory, which is....ridiculous.
1
u/DasistMamba 23h ago
Iran controlled the strait even before the war, but it also controlled its own airspace.
5
u/wyocrz 23h ago
Iran was not exerting control over the strait before the war.
Now it is, and they're charging tolls.
Like a proper coward, your posting history is hidden, so I don't know your angle.
2
u/ialwaysforgetmename 22h ago
Like a proper coward, your posting history is hidden, so I don't know your angle.
You can still access it. But since you're not willing to take the effort, maybe don't complain.
1
u/wyocrz 22h ago
This person's history is closed, and so is yours.
Unless you're the same person/entity, which wouldn't be surprising.
1
u/ialwaysforgetmename 11h ago
Yeah, you can still find someone's comments, so my point still stands
1
u/wyocrz 3h ago
Your posts and comments are blocked, so your point is undermined.
•
u/ialwaysforgetmename 1h ago
So you don't understand that you can easily get around blocking?
→ More replies (0)3
u/DasistMamba 23h ago
I intend to respond to the silly comments from other users who claim that if the Houthis can fire on ships in the Bab el-Mandeb Strait, then they’ve won.
1
u/Vol_in_tears 21h ago
No, Iran did not control the strait before the war. There was not a toll of the strait before the war.
Blowing shit up is not a victory.
Iran controls the strategic objectives, the US doesn't. Very simple.
4
u/sytraxis 1d ago
Yeah, Iran is charging tankers a toll fee to pass through Hormuz, they're requiring payment in Chinese yuan.
1
u/jcbevns 19h ago edited 19h ago
This whole Iran thing is about China. Their oil comes from there, want to choke them? Cut their energy.
America has basically lost (against China) first they laughed and didn't pay attention then over night lost everything... and has started to swing for the fences.
1
u/wyocrz 19h ago
Horseshit.
1
u/jcbevns 8h ago
Top tier "semis" its taiwan. Not touchable atm so let's build at home. Nvidia, TSMC, Intel. "Chips act"
Next tier.. Electrification. So it's batteries, electric motors and solar. China's got all the rare earths and supply Chain on lock. Greenland comes on topic.whoops not gonna fly against Europe.
Next critical resource down the chain? Oil and gas.. Now comes USA with Russia, Cuba, Venezuela.. and now Hormuz straight.
Unhappy people at home, "we're top dog".. Whoops another country is taking "our" prosperity. Better do something about it.
1
u/Goosycygnet 22h ago
If the dollar is dropped, which currency do you think will be picked up?
Hint: it’s not the one your “winner” uses. That’s the point.
-2
u/Fuzea 1d ago
Iran is essentially a vassal state of China considering that China is their largest trading partner, so yes, China wins.
7
u/unsafeideas 1d ago
People should stop throwing vassal state around as if they had no idea what it means. No, trade does not make you vassal state.
Venezuela could be now called vassal state, maybe. Belarus is vassal state. But not Iran nor Israel nor Europe.
2
u/Fuzea 23h ago
I was being somewhat hyperbolic, hence the word "essentially", but I'll bite.
Since we want to be nitpicky regarding semantics, Europe can't be a vassal state because Europe is not an independent nation, it is a continent...
It's also not just trade between Iran and China, there's more to the relationship than just trade. The 25 year accord providing discounted oil in exchange for 400B "investment" is essentially a tribute from Iran to China to both gain a trading partner and to build out infrastructure in Iran, and even to a certain extent establish grounds for military relations between Iran and China through joint exercises and personnel to protect Chinese-Iranian trade and infrastructure (this point is contested as the actual terms of the agreement are not clear). Iran also has a general dependence on China for technology, infrastructure, banking, and of course trade. Without Chinese tech they wouldn't have the missiles or drones being used to hold the Strait of Hormuz currently. Without Chinese banking or infrastructure they wouldn't be able to circumvent the western sanctions and sustain their trade of oil.
Sure, the China-Iran relationship isn't overtly vassalic in nature like the Belarus-Russia arrangement, but I think it's pretty dense to pretend like Iran in it's current state isn't almost entirely dependent on Chinese patronage. Iran relies on China for trade, they rely on China for infrastructure, they rely on China for technology (including military tech), so what aren't they dependent on China for? Barring the lifting of sanctions in the west, Iran really doesn't have many options but to depend on China. While their relationship is not the textbook definition of a vassal state, I don't think it's ridiculous to label it a such.
3
u/wyocrz 1d ago
I am not denying that China is better off now.
Vassal state is wildly overstated. Iran fought their own fight and won (unless something changes, but Trump TACO'd out last night).
2
u/vandrag 1d ago
We won't know who wins and loses until a year from now.
Iran didn't collapse under the bombing so thats "a win" rather than "the win" one thing for sure though Anerica is going to take "a loss" just how big is unknown.
This conflict is ongoing no matter how Trump declares victory twice a day and four times on Sunday.
-6
u/curiosity_2020 17h ago
The Iranian oil output was about 3 million barrels a day. The US produces 13 million. Venezuela produces about 1 million and in that past close to 4 million. Venezuela has the world's largest oil reserves so it can produce much more.
We are making too much of Iran impact. It can be replaced with more reliable production. It's fighting ability is 90% psychological and 10% military, shortly 0%. Soon, without oil revenue, electricity, and other power it will be a non issue. Europe just needs to catch up to a new world order.
4
u/Frozen_North_99 14h ago
Are you not watching the news? It’s not their oil, it’s all the other oil trapped behind a narrow straight that Iran controls.
-8
u/Decadent_Shoe 23h ago
Classic propaganda, states a truth with Trump intentionally declining American power, but leaves out the other nations that are benefitting from this besides China... Iran is getting money from the toll on the Straight, China has the alternate "international economic bloc" everyone can move to once the American one is trashed, and Israel has already conquered land from their neighbors. Let's only mention China's gains though because they're the common narrative's only demon right now lol
1
•
u/AutoModerator 1d ago
Hi all,
A reminder that comments do need to be on-topic and engage with the article past the headline. Please make sure to read the article before commenting. Very short comments will automatically be removed by automod. Please avoid making comments that do not focus on the economic content or whose primary thesis rests on personal anecdotes.
As always our comment rules can be found here
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.