Donald Trump built much of his return to power on two simple and forceful promises: ease Americans’ pockets and keep the United States out of new wars. Three days after the attack on Iran, both promises seem to be breaking at the same time.
The price of oil reacted almost immediately and gasoline began to become more expensive in different international markets. In the United States, where fuel is a political thermometer as sensitive as inflationthe blow is felt quickly. And, furthermore, there are already American soldiers dead in a conflict that the White House presented as a necessary and limited action.
A decision that changes everything
The attack on Iran whose stated objective was to weaken the Tehran regime and prevent it from developing nuclear capacity, It represents the riskiest decision of Trump’s second term. Not only because of its international consequences, but because of the internal contradiction it implies.
For years, Trump criticized his predecessors’ “endless wars” and promised that, under his leadership, the United States would no longer engage in open conflicts of uncertain outcome. That rhetoric was a key piece of his “America First” strategy and the discourse of the MAGA movement.
Today, however, Washington is involved in a military escalation in the Middle East which has already left American victims and which threatens to further destabilize the region.
The immediate impact: more expensive gasoline
The economic consequences did not take long to arrive. Fear of an interruption in energy supply the markets skyrocketed and the price of crude oil rose. In a matter of days, gasoline began to rise in many countries.
For millions of Americans, this has a direct, everyday effect: filling up the tank costs more. And this is happening under a president who had promised to combat inflation and reduce consumer prices as an absolute priority.
The contradiction is evident. A military intervention in one of the key regions for global energy supply It has almost automatic effects on the market. The increase in fuel prices erodes the White House’s economic narrative and fuels criticism from those who see this operation as strategic imprudence.
A justification that does not convince
The Administration defended the attack alleging that there was an imminent threat to national security and that the action could be taken without prior authorization from Congress. But that argument has been met with skepticism by both Democrats and Republicans.
The memory of 2003 and the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq reappears inevitably in public debate. So, the invasion was based on reports that later turned out to be unfounded. Now, the lack of clear evidence of an immediate threat fuels doubts.
Trump himself He later expanded the objectives of the operation: not only stop the Iranian nuclear program, but open the door to an eventual change of regime, something that, according to him, would correspond to the Iranians themselves. The broadening of the framework reinforces the perception that there is no defined exit strategy.
The nuclear deal and the paradox
It is especially striking that one of the central arguments—preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons— was covered by the agreement signed during the presidency of Barack Obama together with the European Union, China and Germany. That pact imposed limits and verification mechanisms on the Iranian nuclear program.
Trump withdrew from that agreement in his first terma decision celebrated by the then Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, who for years defended a hard line towards Tehran. Now, the diplomatic route that existed has been replaced by the military route.
A high voltage political risk
Some analysts They maintain that the offensive could serve to divert attention of internal problems: economic difficulties, social tensions or political controversies. But that reading simplifies a much more uncertain scenario.
War is Rarely an Electoral Asset When It Prolongs or makes everyday life more expensive. If prices continue to rise and the number of casualties increases, the conflict could become a burden on the White House.
For Netanyahu, confrontation with Iran has been a priority strategic objective for years. For Trump, on the other hand, the political cost can be high. His electoral base did not vote for a new intervention in the Middle East, but for economic stability and international withdrawal.
Three days after the attack, the contrast is hard to ignore: more expensive gas, dead soldiers and a country that is once again debating the legality and advisability of entering another war. What began as a show of force could end up calling into question the very core of the promise with which Trump returned to power.
