Trump and Carter's trauma

The generation of the boomers The United States, including Donald Trump, maintains a complex relationship with oil, deeply marked by the energy crises of the 1970s. Endless lines at gas stations are an image etched in their minds. For them, that shock marked the end of the economic romance experienced during the postwar period, and since then, the price of gasoline has become their barometer of the country's economic health, even though it often isn't.

Of the two crises of those years, the 1973 crisis, triggered by the Arab embargo as punishment for supporting Israel in the Yom Kippur War, and the 1979 crisis, the latter had the greatest impact. If the first crisis brought an end to the era of cheap oil, the one at the end of the decade was a collective trauma that transcended the economy.

The 1979 Iranian Revolution not only caused a supply disruption that triggered panic in the markets, sent carbide prices soaring, and exacerbated already high inflation, but it also became a national humiliation when a group of student supporters of the American-American president seized the US embassy in Tehran. The hostage situation, which lasted for more than a year, was compounded by a military rescue attempt in the desert that ended in utter disaster: eight soldiers killed and helicopters engulfed in flames. All of this provoked a sense of powerlessness that paralyzed Jimmy Carter's presidency and doomed his reelection.

Trump is very mindful of that end to Carter's presidency. At many rallies, he cited him as the worst president in history for failing to command respect and insisted that environmentalists had to be ignored in order to achieve absolute energy sovereignty. It is within this perspective of never again showing weakness or dependence that his decisions must be framed: from the very first bombs against Iran's nuclear facilities in June of last year until the start of a new war afterassassinate Ayatollah Khamenei earlier this month.

But beyond its motto Peace through strength (Peace through strength), which he borrowed from Ronald Reagan and uses to justify his interventions, Trump's strategy is unclear. His administration has not explained the ultimate goal of the war and has changed its reasons several times, while regime change in Iran seems to have been ruled out. Some analysts believe he may have acted under pressure from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and emboldened by the apparent success of the intervention in Venezuela in the eyes of the Americans. It is a very plausible interpretation, but Trump can change his mind at any moment because the markets and the price of gasoline weigh more heavily on him than the opinion of any ally or advisor.

Settling the score

This Friday, Brent crude, the global benchmark, closed at $112 a barrel, 50% higher than the start of the trade war, and gasoline rose by almost a dollar. If the conflict drags on and Iran continues to block the Strait of Hormuz, the economy could be turned upside down: inflation will accelerate, growth will slow, and unemployment will begin to rise. This scenario could take its toll on Republicans in the November midterm elections.

That is why Trump has been insisting for days that he will put an end to this "excursion" soon. But, at the same time, he doesn't want to be seen as a weak leader or as capitulating to Iranian demands; therefore, he has not completely ruled out sending troops. In fact, the Pentagon already has options on the table such as occupying Kharg Island to cut off oil exports, an assault on Isfahan to seize uranium, or amphibious operations to neutralize drone bases on the Strait of Hormuz and reopen navigation. These are risky operations that could fail or simply entrench the conflict and, ironically, end up sinking Trump's presidency like Carter's.