The fundamental problem

I'm not sure whether this theory has been specifically addressed in the reporting on how Trump got talked into attacking Iran: but it's pretty obvious, isn't it?

 The fundamental problem with Trump agreeing to get into the war was his not understanding that he can't control the cost of American oil because it's not a nationalised industry.  Hence, he can bluster all he likes about how America doesn't need Middle East oil, and that other countries should buy American oil:  but restrict the global supply and the market price for it (including for Americans) is going to rise while ever the restriction continues.  

Everything he says indicates that he doesn't understand that.   And the mystery is:  how many times has he been told in private that this is what would inevitably happen; and how much of his continued statements ignoring it as a fundamental problem for his American voter base is genuine lack of comprehension, and how much is narcissistic inability to admit this as consequence of what he has done?   

I mean, the precedent for this is the continual misrepresentation of who pays tariff costs - but in that case, you only had nutty economics advisers who might think there is no point in correcting him, because it's the policy they wanted, more or less.   And without continued correction, it seems to me that that a plausible case can be made he has repeated the lie so many times he probably believes it.

But in the case of Iran, you can imagine a more diverse pool of advisers, including the military, and now oil industry executives, and surely some of those have said "just be aware that if this ends up with a significant ongoing restriction on the world's oil supply, your voters are going to feel the pain in higher prices too because we don't control the price of oil here."

This is the problem of supporting a dumb narcissist because you think he can be successfully manipulated to get what you want:   he is open to competing manipulators and the decisions he makes are not going to be based on sound reasoning and comprehension.

I see this article at Politico says that oil executives have been begging him to "deal with" the Strait of Hormuz:

While high prices provide a financial cushion for oil and gas majors, the war has introduced all manner of uncertainty into their investment decisions, which dominated conversations at the CERAWeek industry conference in Houston last week, as my colleagues James Bikales and Ben Lefebvre reported. The war has suddenly reintroduced concepts like naval tanker escorts, first used during the 1987-88 Iran-Iraq war, back into public discourse. Energy executives have hustled to kill proposals — like reimposing the crude oil export ban that former President Barack Obama and congressional Republicans lifted in 2015 — and been surprisingly explicit about the military outcomes they want to see, some sounding like Republicans from a different era.

“If you talk to [American Petroleum Institute] member CEOs, they also want to make sure that we’re finishing the job in Iran. We can’t leave Iran in a position where they can control the strait with any given drone that they shoot into the strait on any given day,” API president Mike Sommers, who once served as chief of staff to former Speaker of the House John Boehner, told POLITICO at CERAWeek.

So, it seems they won't be happy with the "complete blockade" idea and will be working the phones to get this changed ASAP.... 

Update:  I can't get behind the paywall, but if the tweet is correct, it seems to indicate that the economic pain to the US has been pushed by Bessent and others - but how early did they do this?

 

 

Update 2:Maybe this answers my question as to the timing of warnings to Trump about dangers to the US's own energy costs.  In a column at the Washington Post:

...the administration has been caught unawares when other nations have weaponized their economic advantages. Last April, when China retaliated for Trump’s tariffs by banning exports of rare earth materials — critical ingredients in civilian and military products — the president called the move “a real surprise” on social media. 

Likewise, the U.S. seemed to have no answer when Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz. With shipping carriers unwilling to brave Iranian threats, oil markets quaked, sending U.S. gas prices above $4 per gallon and hammering import-dependent economies across Asia.

If the U.S. seemed flat-footed, it may be because the Treasury Department performed no prewar analysis of the conflict’s potential energy market consequences, according to Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon, the senior Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee and a frequent administration critic.

Sriprakash Kothari, nominated to become assistant treasury secretary for economic policy, told committee staffers “that not only did he not perform any work related to energy markets leading up to the war, but that he wasn’t aware of anyone at Treasury who did,” Wyden said in an April 9 letter to Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent.

The Treasury Department did not respond to a request for comment.