It is very interesting to note that the US-Iran ceasefire agreement has recently witnessed a major shift in the priority list of peace proposals. The earlier peace proposal primarily focused on the safe passage of ships through the Strait of Hormuz and Iran’s denuclearisation, but the recent peace proposal has now seen a major shift, incorporating an extension of the Abraham Accord among US allies. Additionally, President Trump has suggested that Iran should also join this accord to recognise Israel, which possibly makes the entire peace proposal logically irrelevant, as this suggestion to Iran joining this accord goes against the foundational political principles of the Iranian regime. Many scholars believe that this proposal reflects the hidden intentions of President Trump, not willing to end this war too early, as this war is benefiting the US directly or indirectly.

While the Global GDP is experiencing a significant decline post-Iran War, the net worth of a few individuals globally, particularly American business tycoons, continues to increase. In recent times, it is very often alleged that the American business tycoons associated with President Trump, directly or indirectly, have witnessed an exponential increase in their profits or net worth. In fact, the personal wealth of President Trump himself has also witnessed a significant rise, nearly tripling from $2.3 billion to $6.5 billion over the last few years. In addition to this, President Trump’s unilateral decisions on the Iran war have not only made the consequences of this war much more uncertain but also made the global economy very much vulnerable. This phenomenon partially reminds us of the Marxist Theory of international politics, in which Marx gives primacy to domestic political economy over geopolitics.

Although the discipline of international political economy traces its origin to Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations and the Ricardian theory of comparative advantage, Marx strongly criticises Adam Smith’s and Ricardo’s ideas of political economy. As Marx’s criticism focuses primarily on the domestic context of capitalism and does not focus much on the external dimensions of capitalism, he argues that policies inspired by Adam Smith and David Ricardo bring wealth to the few rather than to the nation as a whole. Nevertheless, Marx further argues that the search for profit would lead the bourgeoisie to nestle everywhere and settle everywhere, by heavily and exclusively exploiting the poor and workers of that country. In this context, it is very much evident that a few groups of individuals are undoubtedly benefiting from the outcomes of this war, but the majority of the people are obviously bearing the brunt of this war, even in the US. With the skyrocketing oil and energy prices across the globe post the Hormuz blockade, the US market is also experiencing a significant increase in inflationary margin on almost every good and service. This is exactly what Marx argues, that the market, inspired by Adam Smith and Ricardo, will benefit the bourgeoisie class only or a few individuals. Here, in this context, the few individuals are obviously those who are in in/direct association with President Trump.

President Trump, being a businessman first and US President second by his nature, always looks for profit, completely ignoring all aspects of the catastrophe he is creating in recent times, be it his role in Gaza, Ukraine or the Persian Gulf. Trump’s capitalistic approach to war has been so influential that the profits generated by the war outcomes are highly concentrated among a few individuals or companies that have backed Donald Trump throughout his political career. Ever since the Iran war began almost a hundred days ago, President Trump has announced dozens of times regarding reaching a peace agreement with Iran, signalling an end to this war.  Every time he announces that this war will come to an end, the market reacts very differently: crude oil prices drop sharply, and stock markets worldwide see a bullish trend. Before the situation gets better, he again announces something fishy regarding the attack on Iran.  Immediately after such announcements, the market bounces back, with massive hustle in the stock market and energy prices. This incident has been happening repeatedly for the last three months. It is reportedly said that billions of dollars are put into the futures and options markets before President Trump’s war-related every announcement. That is how the President, along with his close associates, continuously makes profits from this war.

It was recently observed that the US and Iran were about to reach an agreement, but the US Navy is reported to have attacked an Iranian Ship in the Gulf of Oman. In response to this, Iran has also launched a massive drone and missile strike at US bases located in Bahrain and Kuwait. This retaliation by Iran has brought the hostility back and may have drastically reduced the possibility of the proposed ceasefire agreement. A few hours after that attack, President Trump posted on his social media platform ‘Truth Social’ stating that “talks are continuing at a rapid pace with the Islamic Republic of Iran”. Such statements by President Trump on a regular basis destabilise the market from time to time. Given that President Trump has a habit of posting manipulative messages on social media after every such incident, it would not be wrong to assume that he is, for his personal gain, just manipulating stock prices, which mainly move on major news updates.

In this context, the sophist Thrasymachus’ famous statement, mentioned by Plato in his book ‘Republic’, that ‘might is right’ has gained significant attention at this time, as the US, under the leadership of Donald Trump, is doing the same. The entire world is watching this episode with their naked eyes, but there is hardly any country which dares to stand against the mighty US. On one side, the world is busy managing problems arising from  skyrocketing fuel prices; on the other side, President Trump is busy manipulating markets for his personal gain.

Contrary to historical patterns in which the US had a history of keeping geopolitics at the forefront of its foreign policy, the US under the Trump administration may have placed geoeconomics at the forefront instead. The Trump administration’s recent unilateral withdrawal from various global organisations, the discontinuation of foreign aid (USAID) to developing countries, and the weaponisation of tariff imposition on its trading partners are the clearest examples of the USA’s recent foreign policy shift from geopolitics to geoeconomics. In this context, it would not be wrong to assume that President Trump, by handling war with such a casual and materialistic attitude, has possibly altered the true, historical nature of globalisation and geopolitics during his tenure. Last but not least, the damage to the rule-based international order caused by President Trump’s materialistic tendencies is possibly irreversible, and the burden of repairing this damage does not lie solely on American citizens but on every global citizen and organisation that believes in the idea of a rule-based international order.

Sanjay Turi, Doctoral candidate at the Centre for West Asian Studies(CWAS), School of International Studies (SIS), Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi