Writer Eduardo Porter argues that the war led by the United States against Iran could become a major factor in weakening the popularity of President Donald Trump and potentially leading to his political defeat. According to the analysis, this would not primarily result from the direct military outcomes of the war, but from its economic consequences and growing opposition among the American public.
In an article published in The Guardian, Porter notes that Trump appears highly confident following what he describes as the successful arrest of Venezuelan president Nicolás Maduro. Trump views this as an achievement that granted him influence over Venezuela’s energy and mineral resources while enabling pressure on a communist system that has troubled Washington since 1959 in Cuba.
According to the writer, Trump seems equally confident that his joint project with Israel in Iran will achieve similar success. Iranian missile and drone attacks launched toward Israel and neighbouring Arab states have not altered his conviction that he will ultimately win, regardless of how he defines the concept of “victory”.
Porter argues that the US administration is downplaying the war’s economic impact. Officials believe the rise in oil prices will be temporary and that the United States is less vulnerable to oil shocks than other countries due to the expansion of domestic oil and gas production since the early years of the twenty first century.
Trump has stated that “the rise in oil prices will be short term, and they will fall quickly once the Iranian nuclear threat is eliminated. It is a very small price the United States and the world must pay for peace and security”. He added that “only fools think otherwise”.
The writer explains that Trump’s sense of confidence also stems from the fact that his unpredictable policies have so far not produced the level of damage many observers feared. However, the war has already led to higher fuel prices, with gasoline costs exceeding levels not seen since Trump first assumed the presidency.
Public Opinion Opposes the War
Porter expects the elevated prices to continue for years, affecting transportation, food, aviation, and trade costs. This in turn could intensify inflationary pressure on the American economy and complicate the efforts of the Federal Reserve to reduce interest rates.
In this context, the writer notes that American public opinion has opposed the war from its early stages. This is unusual in the United States, where military operations are often supported during their initial phases. As living costs continue to rise, Trump’s approval ratings may decline.
In an attempt to limit the crisis, the US administration is seeking to reduce oil prices by securing the passage of oil tankers through the Strait of Hormuz, easing some restrictions on Russian oil exports, and considering increasing Venezuelan oil production to compensate for potential supply shortages.
Nevertheless, Porter believes that ending the war or weakening Iran’s ability to threaten oil shipping routes remains the only realistic path to bringing oil prices down in a meaningful way.
He warns that the “unconditional surrender” demanded by Trump from Tehran may be an unrealistic objective, as Iranian military forces such as the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps are unlikely to abandon the fight easily.
Porter concludes that if the war continues for a prolonged period, the economic pressure within the United States will also persist. Under such circumstances, the conflict could transform from a military venture into a political burden that threatens Trump’s future in power.
Help fund the content that informs you.
