Indecision

After all the breast-thumping and warlike rhetoric, Donald Trump has pleaded for two more weeks to make a decision regarding attacking Iran.

There is no particular reason he chose a two-week timeline. It seems there is nothing more here than the force of habit. We know from the record that whenever Trump reaches a moment of indecision, he reflexively pleads for two more weeks to think things through.

To be fair, joining Israel’s withering bombardment of Iran is not an easy decision for Trump to make.

Trump ran for president on an isolationist, inward-looking platform. He promised an end to US involvement in “forever wars.” A decision to join in attacking Iran will surely split his political base.

With his dwindling job approval ratings, Trump could hardly afford to squander what is left of his political capital. He is under pressure from his most isolationist “America First” supporters like Steve Bannon to stay out of the quagmire in the Middle East.

Bannon visited the White House on the same day Trump backtracked from his belligerent rhetoric.

The geopolitical fallout from US involvement in attacking Iran could be complex. Pakistan, now a close US ally and a sympathetic neighbor to Iran, warns Washington against involvement in the region. Last week, Trump received a senior Pakistani defense official at the White House.

Vladimir Putin surely opposes US involvement in the operation against Iran. The Russian tyrant holds a special place in Trump’s heart.

China has indicated she might more actively support Iran should the US become involved. Several planeloads of suspected military supplies were rushed by Beijing to aid Tehran.

Should the radical Islamist regime in Tehran collapse, Turkey is expected to rush in to fill the regional vacuum. An economic and military power in her own right, Turkey could change the geopolitical equation in the Middle East.

Should the reigning mullahs in Tehran somehow bow out, the multi-ethnic “Islamic republic” could plunge into chaos. There is enough disenchantment and disdain for Islamic fundamentalism to fill a region-wide powder keg. Separatist movements in Kurdistan and Balochistan could become more assertive. The Taliban in adjacent Afghanistan, hostile to the Shia regime in Tehran, could be involved as well.

The theater of conflict could expand wildly.

Just across the Persian Gulf, the prosperous but tiny emirates could be threatened. The US bases in the whole region could be targeted by Iranian missiles. Should Iran send out its small but numerous boats to shut down the Strait of Hormuz – through which nearly a third of global oil supplies transit –  a global recession will loom larger.

On top of all these, there is historical memory to bear.

The US invaded Iraq on the belief that the Saddam Hussein regime was developing “weapons of mass destruction.” After the smoke of war cleared, no such weapons were found. The entire justification for invading was found to be a hoax.

Today, the justification for US engagement against Iran rests on the assumption that the Islamic republic is close to developing a nuclear weapon that could annihilate Israel. There is absence of consensus among US intelligence agencies about this.

While Trump sorts out his options, given the highly personalized manner he conducts foreign policy, the war of attrition between Israel and Tehran continues unabated. It has become a test of which country has greater staying power in the face of mounting destruction.

By the time Trump is ready to choose an option, he might have become irrelevant.

Unprepared

Of course, the Philippines is unprepared to meet the contingencies arising out of this latest conflagration in the Middle East. We have a government that is reactive rather than proactive.

Next Tuesday, pump prices here will take a massive jump. We are not ready to mitigate that outcome by issuing cards for fuel subsidies. It could take us months to set up such a system – too late to matter. In the meantime, our inefficient mass transport system might need instant fare adjustments just to survive.

The global escalation of energy costs is magnified by the rather dramatic depreciation of our peso. This depreciation is due to anxiety over our spiraling national debt. Over the past three years, we have been borrowing without investing in the infra that will help our economy outgrow its debt. Much of the budget has been used to fund “ayuda” programs that do nothing to improve the competitiveness of our economy. This is plain fiscal irresponsibility.

The episode of a declining inflation rate might have come to an end. Higher fuel prices, more expensive energy, a cheaper peso and the pressure to import more food will likely push the inflation rate back up.

We have hundreds, possibly thousands, of migrant workers in the region of conflict wanting to be evacuated. China sent in a convoy of buses to evacuate their nationals by way of Turkmenistan. We have no ready program to evacuate our workers in any major scale.

We may be totally uninvolved in the Israel-Iran conflict, but we will pay the costs of war nevertheless.

We are entirely dependent on imported oil. We are in no position to defend the peso as capital flees to safe currencies. Having no competitive exports and relying on imported food, our whole economy is dependent on remittances from our migrant workers.

In war, our strategic weaknesses become more glaring.