Donald Trump has always understood one thing better than most modern politicians that markets respond to perception. In the grinding drama over Iran, the American president appears to have weaponised uncertainty itself. One day he hints at a diplomatic breakthrough with Tehran and signals the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz which causes investors to breathe a sigh of relief. However, hours later, he reverses course by declaring there is “no rush” for a deal and that restrictions will remain until Iran bends fully to American conditions. The markets wobble again Trump’s defenders may argue that unpredictability is a negotiating tactic. Henry Kissinger once cultivated strategic ambiguity during the Cold War. Richard Nixon perfected the so-called ‘madman theory’ to keep adversaries guessing. Yet Trump’s oscillations differ in both scale and intent. In recent weeks, analysts and ethics experts in the United States have raised uncomfortable questions about whether political messaging is increasingly shaping market volatility in ways that benefit insiders, speculators and politically connected traders. When geopolitical brinkmanship begins to resemble a financial instrument, public trust in democratic institutions erodes. Nearly a fifth of the world’s oil passes through Hormuz. A closure or blockade affects fuel prices in Mumbai as much as manufacturing costs in Shanghai or inflation in Berlin. Trump’s repeated shifts between escalation and reconciliation have had grave implications for India, which imports more than 80 percent of its crude oil requirements. Any prolonged instability in Hormuz translates directly into higher import bills, inflationary pressures and stress on the rupee while ratcheting prices of essentials. India has spent years carefully balancing its ties between Iran, the Gulf monarchies and the United States. Tehran remains important for connectivity projects such as Chabahar Port and for India’s access to Central Asia. But allies and adversaries alike are forced into a perpetual state of recalibration because American policy itself appears unstable. Trump’s Iran manoeuvring reflects a dangerous transformation in global politics, which is the merger of geopolitics with spectacle capitalism. International crises are increasingly consumed like market-moving entertainment. This may generate short-term leverage for him or even produce tactical victories at the negotiating table. Iran, under immense economic strain, reportedly agreeing in principle to surrender its highly enriched uranium stockpile is no small development. Yet diplomacy built on volatility carries long-term costs and lead to the weakening of institutions. Markets become addicted to chaos and chaos, once normalised, rarely remains controllable. The world’s largest economy cannot afford to conduct foreign policy like a reality television script, with cliffhangers designed to manipulate sentiment every news cycle. Great powers are supposed to provide stability, not amplify uncertainty for strategic theatrics. Trump may believe that time is on America’s side. But for an anxious global economy already strained by wars, inflation and fragmentation, time spent trapped in manufactured uncertainty is becoming increasingly expensive.
Comments