The Geopolitical Stew Boils Over: A Recipe for Turmoil
How long will all this last? Probably until Trump’s term in office comes to an end
By Anil Madan
On Tuesday, March 31st, US stocks surged. Some financial reporting outlets attributed this to supposed signals from President Trump and Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian of an apparent two-sided de-escalation of the Iran war.Lost in the euphoria, at least to the financial reporters, were comments by Fed Chairman Powell that the current spike in oil prices does not by itself warrant an increase in interest rates.
It made no difference that when Trump said that Iran’s president had made an overture for a ceasefire, Pezeshkian denied that any such proposal existed
A Wall Street Journal report stated that Trump would consider an end to the Iran war without insisting that the Strait of Hormuz be reopened as a precondition. Trump seemed to confirm this report when he stated to the New York Post that the US is “not going to be there too much longer,” adding that the Strait would eventually open after the US withdraws. The latter comment was apparently intended to calm the markets about the price of oil and it did as Brent crude futures dropped sharply.
Early that afternoon, the markets surged even more as unconfirmed reports circulated that Pezeshkian is open to ending the war despite the latter’s denial that any such overture had been made.
The NATO Strain and Regional Geopolitics
Lending some credence to the idea that Trump was serious about a unilateral withdrawal from the Middle East theatre, were his comment about NATO members and other countries relying on oil shipped through the Strait of Hormuz. He complained that NATO members had been disloyal by failing to support the U.S. in ensuring that the strait stays open. Then he declared that the US did not rely on oil from the Middle East, forgetting of course, that the US relies on supply chains dependent on oil, LNG, sulfur, and helium, exported through the strait, and on the shipment of its own exports to Gulf nations through that channel. Finally, he exhorted these nations to buy US oil and to secure shipping through the strait on their own. Those countries should not count on the US to help.
Trump threatened, as he did in the past, to withdraw from NATO on the ground that its European members and Britain had refused to send military support to secure the strait. He repeated his lament that NATO has been a one-way street with the US bearing the lion’s share of costs. It should be noted that the 2024 National Defense Authorization requires either a two-thirds Senate supermajority or congressional approval for NATO withdrawal. But this might not stop Trump from issuing an Executive Order based on presidential authority over foreign policy. That would precipitate a constitutional crisis.
It seemed for a moment that the very existence of NATO hung by a slender thread. Some Republican leaders protested and one warned that any attempt by the president to withdraw from NATO would destroy their party and lead to a MAGA civil war.
European leaders were somewhat more sanguine, rejecting Trump’s request for military support against Iran. In their view, and with some justification, the Middle East conflict is not a NATO mission. On the other hand, it is not a significant stretch to view attacks on American bases and aircraft as attacks on a NATO member that would trigger Article 5 of the NATO charter.
For now, it seems that the most Trump will do is de-emphasize America’s leadership role in NATO and relinquish operational responsibilities to European and British personnel. There are more than 100,000 US troops stationed across Europe. It is not likely that Trump will want to reduce America’s footprint on the continent.
Gulf Allies and the Existential Iranian Threat
Against this backdrop, Trump announced that he would address the American people on Wednesday night at prime time.
Stock market euphoria persisted. Could it really be that investors and traders in the US saw Iranian Control of the Strait of Hormuz as a positive force for the world’s economy? Would not Iran’s ability to choke off the flow of oil and critical supply-chain feedstocks be viewed as a threat not only by the Gulf nations, but by European consumers of petroleum products, and Indo-Pacific nations?
None of this seemed to make sense. Indeed, the Gulf nations do not see Iran as a peaceful neighbour. In a mid-March article, Yaroslav Trofimov, Chief Foreign-Affairs Correspondent for The Wall Street Journalreported: “Battered by Iranian strikes and the disruption of the Strait of Hormuz, the United Arab Emirates and some fellow Persian Gulf states have come to view Iran’s theocracy as an existential enemy. They now want the regime they once courted to be neutered, if not dismantled, when the conflict ends — so the ordeal is never repeated.”
In a follow-up article a week later, The Wall Street Journal reported that the leaders of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates were lobbying Trump to stick with the war until Iran is sufficiently weakened that it won’t pose a threat. In essence, the paper reported, they were alarmed at Trump’s seeming eagerness to do a deal to end the war with Iran that would leave them with a hostile and potent rival, and they pushed for him to continue the fight. Saudi Arabia was said to be not comfortable with a 15-point plan that the US allegedly had presented to Iran through mediators.
The Strategic Value of the Strait and Regional Security
Early on April 1st, the Journal reported that after sustaining Iranian attacks for weeks, the UAE“is working to persuade the US and others to open the key Strait of Hormuz by any means necessary.” Nor was it any surprise that Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and other Gulf countries were said to be leaning toward joining the war against Iran after that country’s missiles and drones had disrupted their economies and the prospect of giving Iran long-term leverage over the Strait of Hormuz is anathema to them. A week earlier, the UAE minister of state for foreign affairs urged a conclusive end to the Iranian threat: “We want a guarantee that this will never happen again,” he said.
And it was clear that Israel did not see the job as complete. There have been repeated assertions by spokespersons for the State of Israel and the IDF, that Israel continues to degrade and destroy Iran’s capabilities, but more remains to be done.
What of regime change? Although Trump and Secretary of War (nee Defence) Hegseth claim that regime change has already occurred, the theocratic regime or its progeny remains in charge. Deep within the uncertainty lies Trump’s vague promise that “help is on the way.” Abandoning a nation of some 90 million people — many of whom have taken that promise to heart — may not be the most prudent course of action.
So, it did not seem plausible that Trump would simply declare victory, ignore that the Strait of Hormuz remains under Iranian control and the world’s energy markets are in turmoil, and just leave the arena. Indeed, I said so to some of my friends, as I tried to prognosticate what might happen.
It is well-known that Trump never admits defeat. It cannot have been lost on him that relations with Saudi Arabia and the UAE, not to mention, Bahrain, Kuwait, Dubai, and Qatar, would forever be strained. No, Trump was not about to let Iran bully him.
In that vein, Trump’s speech was no surprise. Rather than declaring victory, he said “We are on track to complete all of America’s military objectives shortly, very shortly.” The words “to complete all of America’s military objectives” speaks of unfinished business.
Unfinished Business and Global Economic Consequences
What remains unfinished? We can point to control of the Strait, and possibly actual regime change. In his speech, he said America’s objectives in Iran are “very simple and clear.” He elaborated: “We are systematically dismantling the regime’s ability to threaten America or project power outside of their borders.” Note the congruence here with the expressed wishes of Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and other Gulf countries.
Keep in mind that the US has sent some 50,000 troops to the Middle East. Whereas there is no point to speculation here, it is worth noting that the troops give Trump a range of choices and even the opportunity to reset military objectives. It is not out of the realm of possibility that American troops will be stationed in the Gulf countries as additional protection for their infrastructure.
It will not be lost on Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait and Bahrain where hosted US bases have been repeatedly attacked by Iranian missiles and drones throughout the war, that Trump thanked them and declared: “They’ve been great, and we will not let them get hurt or fail in any way, shape or form,” Trump said.
Trump touted American success in Iran: “Never in the history of warfare has an enemy suffered such clear and devastating large-scale losses in a matter of weeks.”
But that was not all. In true Trumpian style, he issued a clear threat: We are going to finish the job, and we’re going to finish it very fast. We are getting very close,” he said.
Although, he said, Iran is “no longer a threat,” he threatened consequences if Iran did not agree to a deal. “If there is no deal, we are going to hit each and every one of their electric generating plants, very hard and probably simultaneously,” he said. “We have not hit their oil, even though that’s the easiest target of all, because it would not give them even a small chance of survival or rebuilding. But we could hit it, and it would be gone, and there’s not a thing they could do about it.”
The point cannot have been lost on Pezeshkian. In a little-noticed development, he released an open letter to the American public accusing the US as acting as a proxy for Israel, willing to fight “to the last American soldier.” In a plaintive appeal, he addressed those Americans “who, amid a flood of distortions and manufactured narratives, continue to seek the truth.”
He noted that despite its long history and regional strength, “Iran has never, in its modern history, chosen the path of aggression, expansion, colonialism, or domination,” adding that it has only ever “resolutely and bravely repelled those who have attacked it.”
Pezeshkian drew a sharp line between governments and their citizens, stating that the Iranian people harbour no ill will towards Americans. “The Iranian people harbour no enmity toward other nations, including the people of America, Europe, or neighbouring countries” he wrote, describing this distinction as “a deeply rooted principle in Iranian culture and collective consciousness — not a temporary political stance.”
A combination of plea, plaint and umbrage
Not mentioned was that the Iranian regime seems to harbour ill will towards its own citizens.
In the face of Iran’s ongoing support of proxies to wage war, and its development of offensive drones and missiles, Pezeshkian went on: “What Iran has done — and continues to do — is a measured response grounded in legitimate self-defence, and by no means an initiation of war or aggression,” he stressed.
The Pezeshkian letter was a combination of plea, plaint, umbrage at being ill-treated, and defiance. It is not clear what he sought to achieve by it other than to state his position for the record.
So, what comes next? It seems that President Trump’s mind is made up. He continues the attacks on Iran. At least until tomorrow. Then, he may change his mind.
Will the US open the Strait of Hormuz? Recall that he said it should be renamed the Strait of Trump. The temptation to hang a banner reading “STRAIT OF TRUMP” reminiscent of George W. Bush’s “MISSION ACCOMPLISHED” banner might just be too great.
Will the NATO alliance fracture? Probably not. No more than it is already fractured.
The biggest casualty of the Iran war might have been Ukraine. But Ukraine has shown that it has drone technology and prowess in conflict that is worthwhile.
The world is surely in for recessionary economic forces to take hold because the effects of this war will linger. The US economy will suffer less because of abundant supplies of oil. But life will be harder for Americans unable to afford higher gasoline and heating oil prices. The ravaging of supply chains will affect automobiles, computers, appliances, and the like. China’s economy will likewise slow with higher energy prices and supply chain constraints.
How long will all this last? Probably until Trump’s term in office comes to an end.
Cheerz…
Bwana
Mauritius Times ePaper Friday 3 April 2026
An Appeal
Dear Reader
65 years ago Mauritius Times was founded with a resolve to fight for justice and fairness and the advancement of the public good. It has never deviated from this principle no matter how daunting the challenges and how costly the price it has had to pay at different times of our history.
With print journalism struggling to keep afloat due to falling advertising revenues and the wide availability of free sources of information, it is crucially important for the Mauritius Times to survive and prosper. We can only continue doing it with the support of our readers.
The best way you can support our efforts is to take a subscription or by making a recurring donation through a Standing Order to our non-profit Foundation.
Thank you.
