Original Source
Trump's Iran Attack Dilemma: Risking All in Escalation
Iran Attack Dilemma and Escalation Risks
Former President Donald Trump has maneuvered himself into an unenviable position by attacking Iran at Israel's behest. Analysis suggests that if he continues the escalation, the US is likely to lose by any meaningful measure. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent presented the logic, 'Sometimes you have to escalate to de-escalate,' but this is criticized for mistaking a risky gamble for a reliable principle. For Iran, this is an existential war, and being attacked while negotiating means mere survival counts as victory. In contrast, the US began with the higher ambition of regime change, making anything short of it a failure.
Energy Market Disruption and International Repercussions
Should former President Trump continue down the path of escalation at Israel's instigation, he risks wreaking havoc on his own country, his allies, and the wider world. If he orders strikes on Iran's energy infrastructure, generally prohibited under international law, Iran would likely retaliate by obliterating US assets and the broader economic foundations of Washington's allies, causing lasting damage to global confidence in them. Disrupting Gulf oil and gas flows would upend global energy markets and the global economy at large for years until the infrastructure is rebuilt, precipitating a severe and protracted global inflationary recession. Iran could also strike further afield, either directly or through proxies, including terrorist groups. If US troops were deployed on Iranian soil, more American lives would be risked in a war of criminal purpose.
*Source: RT News (2026-03-23)*
