As with any self-respecting farce, Trump’s communication of the Persian Gulf conflict has its gags—except, frankly, they’re all too recurring. Repeating it once, twice, maybe three times—as long as they’re well-placed within the narrative—can still be effective, but it becomes just a tiredly repetitive cliché. Some have kept count: since the start of the war—February 28, 2026—Trump has now used TACO (Trump Always Chicken Out) 67 times. Sixty-seven. And now the timing is getting ever closer, ever more burning, because if the gag itself isn’t effective anymore, you have to focus everything on timing.

Subscribe now

So on Friday night you say you’re going to unleash hell, and by Sunday morning you’ve already completely backtracked.
And, obviously, all this no longer has any effect on the energy markets; the game is definitely too overused.
But the script remains unchanged, impervious to the boos from the audience.
Mohammad Bin Salman called President Trump and asked him not to attack Iran.
Trump: “Iran and other Middle Eastern countries have just asked us to refrain from any attack.”
Tehran: “Iran did not ask Trump not to attack.”

That the Gulf countries are fed up (and empty pockets...) with all this is all too clear, and they certainly didn’t wait until the last minute to let Washington know. Just yesterday, a desperate appeal was made by the ruler of Bahrain to Iran: “For the sake of the Prophet of Allah, don’t attack us!” To which the Iranian Foreign Ministry responded by reminding the kingdom of its responsibilities and, almost incidentally, that it was born from a secession from Iranian territory...

The problem is always the same, and it’s called exhaustion. Long-range strike munitions (Tomahawk first and foremost), anti-missile munitions (Patriot and THAAD), and the US Strategic Petroleum Reserve. In short, the United States is at the end of its tether... And what’s most lacking is strategic vision—not to mention courage. Because it obviously takes a lot of it to admit that you’ve dragged (or let yourself be dragged) the country into a resoundingly losing war, and that you don’t know how to get out of it.

Share

Meanwhile, the New York Times informs us that US allies believe the Trump administration’s war against Iran is heading for a strategic defeat. And this is clearly the perception, especially among countries in the region, which have lost a great deal and risk losing a great deal (in addition to Bahrain, Kuwait, itself a former Iraqi province).

However, it would be a resounding mistake to place all the blame on Trump. Aside from the fact that there are members of his administration—both civilian and military—who continue to want to continue the war, there is no real initiative to break this cycle; not even the oft-cited J.D. Vance—in my opinion decidedly overrated—is able to move beyond small and temporary lapses. It’s obvious that if we continue like this, the US position will be increasingly weaker, and Iran’s increasingly stronger. Therefore, the later we get out of this situation, the worse it will be, because Washington will have to accept harsher conditions. And by now, Tehran is all too aware of America’s unreliability, so any negotiations—when the time comes for real ones—will require concrete steps before they begin: lifting sanctions, returning stolen Iranian funds, Israeli withdrawals, and an end to the war on all fronts.

Follow me on Telegram!

But no one in the White House, or anywhere near it, has the guts to say, “Okay, that’s enough. Continuing like this is pointless; let’s find the best possible compromise and go home.” And this lack of courage is only raising the temperature of the water, while the US frog is boiling. And Tehran is grateful.

What prompted Iran, for the first time ever, to interrupt its policy of a calibrated response to Israeli-US attacks, to strike first at US bases in Jordan? And, less than 48 hours later, to attack a US gas tanker in the port of Damietta, Egypt?

Subscribe now

The hypothesis that this was a response to the Saudi-US attacks against some Iraqi Popular Mobilization Forces bases, which resulted in around 15 deaths, including five IRGC members, while not ruled out, nevertheless appears unlikely. First, because it would be only the second time Tehran has responded directly to an attack by its Axis of the Resistance allies (the first, against Israel, after an attack on Hezbollah), but above all because Iran always makes its moves according to a strategic logic, never out of mere reactivity. So, what is the reason for this controlled escalation?

The most likely answer is that Tehran believes, rightly so, that Washington is in a particularly difficult moment, and therefore should not be given the opportunity to continue the game of stop-and-go, with military strikes alternating with false pauses in negotiations, while Trump’s narrative oscillates between apocalyptic threats and fanciful tales of Iranians begging for a halt to the airstrikes.

The attack the other day against the Muwaffaq Salti base first and foremost puts to rest the tales spun by the US president. The Iranians are not even trying to return to negotiations; on the contrary, they are expanding their area of ​​intervention (Damietta).

Share

But above all, they are forcing the United States to quickly return to the phase of kinetic conflict, without any tactical pause. And this is precisely because, while this obviously also entails a cost for Iran, the resulting strategic disadvantage for the US is far greater.

Let’s recap. On Wednesday, Admiral Brad Cooper, commander of CENTCOM, recommended ceasing the attacks, claiming they had now “reached their maximum effectiveness.” On Monday, the price of Brent oil—which had reached $101 last Friday, in the midst of the kinetic phase—fell to $90.00 a barrel. The Center for Strategic and International Studies confirms that the US used so many munitions during the war that its stockpile of Patriot interceptor missiles is now less than 1,000, while that of THAAD missiles is around 250, and it will take more than 3 years to restore them to pre-war levels. Thus, commanders only intercept threats that pose a risk to US troops; everything else is simply ignored. Today, NBC reports that President Trump lost his temper during a meeting, shouting and ranting in frustration over the military options presented to him and the lack of progress toward an agreement with Iran. In practice, halting the attacks allows the United States to halt, at least temporarily, its spiraling ammunition consumption, push oil prices lower, and buy time to find a solution. Dragging Washington back into a controlled spiral of reciprocal attacks means driving up oil prices, forcing unnecessary ammunition consumption, and not giving the Pentagon time to explore new alternatives.

Follow me on Telegram!

Once again, in short, Iran’s superior strategic capabilities are confirmed, as is its skillful use of escalation to lock the US into a mode of confrontation that quickly erodes its chances of a painless exit strategy. Tehran holds the upper hand, and is not hesitant to wave it in the American wound.

If the war isn’t going so well for the United States militarily, how are things going economically? The first problem Washington must address is the oil market. Although it’s often repeated that the US is a major producer, the reality isn’t so simple. First of all, the major oil companies are private, and operate according to the logic of maximum profit, so if prices rise (Brent is currently at $91/barrel), they sell to whoever is willing to pay more—which often means selling, for example, in Southeast Asia, rather than at home. And in any case, for the same reason, prices at the pump also rise. Furthermore, due to the type of crude oil, the United States imports a lot of oil, and pays for it at market prices. Although they are stealing Venezuelan oil (with the complicity of Caracas), it’s not enough to contain the rise in inflation.

Subscribe now

To keep market prices low, Washington has so far played on Trump’s posts and on crude oil injections from strategic reserves. These have now reached an all-time low.

Then, of course, there is the direct cost of the war. Over $37 billion, according to Hegseth’s latest report to Congress. But this is likely only the out-of-pocket costs, excluding the expense of possibly rebuilding bases in West Asia (if that’s ever possible) and replacing lost assets—radar, aircraft, drones, helicopters, etc.

Then, of course, there is the monstrous debt, which continues to grow inexorably. And current interest payments are growing in parallel. Thirty-year Treasury bonds currently yield 5.06%, the highest since 2007. Before the war in Ukraine, it was around 2%. The US is paying more than double the interest on its long-term debt compared to four years ago. The reason is that debt is growing relentlessly, inflation risks are discouraging investors, and the Treasury is issuing an ever-increasing number of securities; and all of this requires offering higher yields to attract enough buyers. In short, it’s a snake chasing its own tail.

Ironically, private companies, especially in the technology sector, are effectively competing with the Treasury. The enormous investments required for AI are pushing tech companies to issue record amounts of debt to finance infrastructure. The US stock market, driven precisely by companies linked to AI development, appears to be the main attractor of capital to the United States at this stage. But, even aside from the fact that this colossal bubble is fueled by competition with public debt financing, and that these companies pay minimal taxes, all of this is exposed to market volatility. For example, in recent days, the US stock market has lost nearly a trillion dollars after Trump issued threats to Iran over the loss of American military personnel.

Share

Over the past two to three weeks, US stock markets (S&P 500, Nasdaq Composite, and Dow Jones) have experienced a period of high volatility, characterized by alternating declines and rebounds driven primarily by three factors: geopolitical tensions, interest rate outlooks, and the start of corporate earnings season.

Eventually, the cycle comes full circle: US government actions trigger geopolitical reactions that immediately reverberate through the markets, forcing Washington to continually rebalance its balance of power. However, the trend of debt and exponential growth in public spending shows no sign of abating, and even the private economic sectors—which retain their appeal—are still exposed to the same fluctuations generated by government policies.

Follow me on Telegram!

Economically, therefore, the US is not faring well either.