TRUMP RULE: Is America Really Becoming Great Again?

As missiles streak across the skies of Tehran and Tel Aviv, the escalating conflict between Israel and Iran, which began on June 13, 2025, threatens to draw the United States into another Middle Eastern war. President Donald Trump, once a champion of avoiding military entanglements, now faces a critical decision: support Israel’s aggressive campaign against Iran or uphold his “no war agenda.” With global trade already reeling from spiking oil prices and disrupted shipping routes, the consequences of this conflict could reshape Trump’s trade ambitions and challenge his “Make America Great Again” (MAGA) narrative.

Trump’s Shifting Stance: From Diplomacy to War Drums?

During his first term, Trump prided himself on avoiding new wars, withdrawing troops from Syria and Afghanistan, and engaging in high-profile diplomacy with North Korea. His “no war agenda” resonated with Americans weary of endless conflicts. However, the Israel-Iran conflict, sparked by Israel’s preemptive strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities, has put this stance to the test. Israel claims Iran was on the verge of developing nuclear weapons, a claim Trump has echoed despite US intelligence reports suggesting otherwise.

Trump’s rhetoric has been mixed. On June 13, 2025, he posted on Truth Social, “I gave Iran chance after chance to make a deal. They refused. Now they’re dead,” signaling strong support for Israel (X post). He has also warned Iran to “make a deal before there’s nothing left” (X post). Yet, he has not committed to direct military action, stating, “The last thing you want to do is ground force”. His self-imposed two-week deadline to decide on US involvement, announced on June 19, 2025, suggests he is under pressure from Israel and domestic hawks to act.

This shift has sparked controversy. Some of Trump’s supporters, like former Fox News host Tucker Carlson, have criticized his backing of Israel, warning it could lead to a wider war. Others, like Joel Rosenberg, praise Trump for standing with Israel (X post). The question remains: is Trump surrendering his anti-war principles to align with Israel’s agenda, or is he navigating a complex geopolitical landscape with diplomacy still in play?

The Human and Economic Toll of War

The Israel-Iran conflict, now in its second week, has already claimed lives and disrupted communities. In Iran, over 220 people, including 70 women and children, have been killed, with strikes targeting nuclear sites, military installations, and even civilian infrastructure like the state broadcaster. In Israel, 24 people have died, and 685 have been injured, with Iranian missiles hitting cities like Haifa and Beersheba. The human cost underscores the urgency of de-escalation, as families on both sides face fear and loss.

Economically, the conflict is sending shockwaves through global markets. Oil prices have surged by over 10%, with Brent crude reaching $75.15 per barrel, the highest in five months, due to fears of disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz, a critical chokepoint for 25% of the world’s oil trade. Shipping routes are also affected, with vessels rerouting around conflict zones, adding weeks and millions in costs. Financial markets have reacted with volatility, with the Dow dropping nearly 2% and the S&P 500 losing over 1%, while safe-haven assets like gold and the US dollar rally (Real Investment Advice). These disruptions threaten global economic stability, impacting everything from consumer prices to industrial production.

Trump’s Trade Ambitions: At Risk or Reinforced?

Trump’s trade policies, rooted in his “America First” doctrine, aim to revitalize US manufacturing, impose tariffs to protect domestic industries, and secure favorable trade deals. The Israel-Iran conflict poses both risks and opportunities for these goals.

Risks to Trade Ambitions

• Rising Costs: Higher oil prices increase production and transportation costs, potentially slowing US industrial growth and raising consumer prices, which could undermine Trump’s promise of economic prosperity.

• Global Uncertainty: Market volatility and disrupted trade routes make it harder to attract foreign investment or negotiate trade agreements, as countries prioritize security over economic cooperation.

• Resource Diversion: If the US enters the conflict, increased military spending could divert funds from domestic programs, straining the economy and complicating Trump’s manufacturing revival plans.

Potential Opportunities

A swift resolution, with US support leading to a weakened Iran, could enhance Trump’s image as a strong leader, potentially strengthening his hand in trade negotiations. Additionally, higher global oil prices could boost US energy exports, aligning with Trump’s goal of energy independence. However, these benefits hinge on a quick end to the conflict, which seems unlikely given the ongoing escalation.

The anti-war perspective argues that the risks far outweigh the benefits. A prolonged conflict could spiral into a regional or even global war, with devastating economic consequences that would overshadow any short-term political gains.

Will “Make America Great Again” Evolve?

The “Make America Great Again” narrative has been a rallying cry for economic revitalization, job creation, and national pride. The Israel-Iran conflict could force Trump to adapt this message in several ways:

• Shift to Military Strength: If the US joins the war, Trump may emphasize America’s military prowess and its role as a global leader, framing support for Israel as essential to national security. This could resonate with his base but risks alienating anti-war supporters.

• Economic Adaptation: Should the conflict lead to economic downturn, Trump might need to adjust his narrative to address rising costs and market instability, perhaps by doubling down on domestic energy production or protectionist policies to shield US industries.

• Diplomatic Pivot: If Trump opts for diplomacy, as suggested by his openness to a ceasefire “depending on circumstances”, he could reinforce his original MAGA vision by prioritizing economic stability and avoiding costly wars.

The conflict’s outcome will likely determine the narrative’s direction. A prolonged war could erode public support for Trump’s economic promises, while a diplomatic resolution could strengthen his image as a dealmaker, preserving the core of MAGA.

A Call for Peace

The human and economic costs of the Israel-Iran conflict highlight the urgent need for de-escalation. Civilian deaths, disrupted lives, and economic turmoil serve no one’s interests. Trump’s flirtation with military involvement risks entangling the US in another quagmire, undermining his legacy and the global economy. Diplomacy, as advocated by European leaders and even some Iranian officials, offers a path to stability. The world watches as Trump decides whether to uphold his “no war agenda” or yield to the pressures of war, with the hope that peace prevails over conflict.

Comparative Table: Potential Impacts of US Involvement

Crossroads

The Israel-Iran conflict, initiated by Israel’s unprovoked strikes, has placed President Trump at a crossroads. His consideration of military support suggests a potential surrender of his “no war agenda,” driven by pressure from Israel and domestic politics. The conflict’s economic fallout—surging oil prices, disrupted trade routes, and market volatility—threatens Trump’s trade ambitions and could force a redefinition of “Make America Great Again.” As the world grapples with the consequences, the path to peace through diplomacy remains the most humane and economically sound choice, preserving both lives and global stability.