It used to be said that war was a continuation of diplomacy by other means. Now we can cut out the middleman.

The US strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities at Fordow etc is a continuation of the cloak and daggers school of diplomacy. However, the chaotic nature of US foreign policy and the ‘will he won’t he’ approach will induce far more than a possible worldwide recession.

The strikes on Iran’s nuclear assets, then strikes at the South Pars gas field, and now the uranium enrichment plant at Fordow are all part of the US inability to decouple from the Middle East.

Whilst promising a new era away from the Neo Cons’ vision of policing the world, the US is now fully signed up to ‘perpetual war’ as an instrument for foreign policy. It was envisaged by those on the paleoconservative right that at least Trump meant a recalibration of US strategy.

That seemed to be the plan with Ukraine.

As little as possible to keep Ukraine afloat, whilst pandering to Putin. But it is a hugely confused foreign policy, and in many ways reflects the paucity of quality leadership in the Trump Administration, Britain, and Europe. There is still a kind of colonial arrogance from the Occident whilst the ‘Heart of Darkness’ view of the Orient still prevails in the closeted liberal worldview.

It is not just the possible economic shock waves if the Strait of Hormuz is closed that cause concern. It is that in a world of McTrump diplomacy, promises and threats have little value.

Government is now about marketing and public relations. Substance has long gone with only a four-year term to appear successful. This means that the entire basis of international relations is turned upside down.

The Trump Administration wants embedded international problems solved in 24 hours. Empires are rearranged in the week. It’s Meghan Markle without the ballistic missiles. There are no meetings on the raft at Tilsit, as Napoleon and Alexander rearranged the seats of Europe over fine cognac and crepes in 1805.

The immediate concern is, besides perpetual death, the world economy. Brent Crude was already up to $74 last Monday. Now is the summer of our discontent as Iran threatens to close the Strait of Hormuz. Iran, a stone’s throw from the sunny Gulf States, holds all the cards as the Captain of the Strait of Hormuz. One-third of the world’s oil supplies come through Hormuz. Approximately 20 million barrels a day.

Most states will now be in panic mode. The Europeans, such as the British under Starmer, who have been trying to get interest rates down, are facing recession. China, dependent on cheap Iranian oil, may threaten the entire Asian archipelago with Taiwan on the agenda. There will be push back and Trump has not calibrated the long-term consequences. It is as if the lessons of Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan are erased in a fit of amnesia.

Goldman Sachs says that a Strait of Hormuz blockade could push oil prices above $100 a barrel. Costs of production will be passed onto the already battered consumer facing the energy hikes coming out of the Ukraine war. It will confirm opinions on the right in Europe that keeping out of foreign conflict makes sense. Besides, Europe was never fully in on supporting Ukraine.

The CREA (Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air) report shows that Europe is funding Putin’s war through purchases of Russian oil. The Czech Republic, for example, has purchased $7.62 billion of Russian oil and gas since the invasion of Ukraine. Aid to Ukraine in the meantime was just 1.29 billion euros.

This shows the dependency and sensibility of Europe to geopolitical conflict. Rising oil prices will mean spiralling inflation. Russia is already on the verge of economic implosion. Its deal with Iran is under intense pressure. Investors risk-off positioning has meant a flow to Gold which rose 1 per cent on Friday, although this has fallen back despite the attacks. This money view sees another scenario.

The other template is that Iran itself will suffer given a Strait of Hormuz debacle. Iran’s trade with China flows through the Straits. Iran will suffer from the closure as much as anyone else. Attacking vessels in the straits could also elicit a further response from the US. Iran’s options are limited. Of course, they could turn to Russia for support but the fiscal problems in Russia (interest rates at 20 per cent) mean the Russian economy is on the ropes.

It is also punch drunk and weary from the Ukraine conflict.

The ‘Social Contract’ between the governor and the governed only works in so far as the two Hobbesian features are present: security and well-being. Russia’s claim to be able to supply Iran with nuclear weapons may be just rhetoric. But it could be a return to the ‘Bay of Pigs’ Cuban scenario where the ante is upped and brinkmanship come to the fore.

Herein lies the biggest danger to world security.

The failed coup of April 1961 brought the two superpowers of the US and Soviet Union to the brink of nuclear war. But in those days Kennedy and Khrushchev were level-headed and surrounded by a coterie of wise men. Things have changed now and changed utterly. In the second coming there is no room for diplomacy.

Henry Kissinger knew the problem of pantomime diplomacy; that is a reflection of representative democracy’s obsession with their electorate. The need to save face, to see victory, to wave that piece of paper.

‘It is almost always a mistake for heads of state to undertake the details of a negotiation. They are then obliged to master specifics normally handled by their foreign offices and are deflected onto subjects more appropriate to their subordinates, while being kept from issues only heads of state can resolve. Since no one without a well-developed ego reaches the highest office, compromise is difficult and deadlocks are dangerous. With the domestic positions of the interlocutors so often dependent on at least the semblance of success, negotiations more often concentrate on obscuring differences than they do on dealing with the essence of a problem.’ [italics mine]

Diplomacy is based upon extraction. It is about building an empire. Taking control of the heart of darkness.

The world now is governed by geoeconomics. It is resource-dominant. Yet the liberal miasma speaks of an ‘International Rule of Law’. The UN works in a cosy ivory tower of irrelevance. There is no balance of competing empires only empires desiring to be the empire in itself. End of histories or ideologies have long since been consigned to the dustbin of history.

As Yeats noted ‘the ceremony of innocence is drowned’. A new Chatham House paper talks of the new arena of ‘multi-alignment’. Empire consolidating. In the past 10 years world conflicts have increased by 30 per cent. Conflicts are geographically scattered. The UN, the indolent successor to the League of Nations notes that conflict is ‘more protracted, and less responsive to traditional forms of resolution’.

Multi-alignment means that countries such as Qatar, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates, for example, hold various alliances and oppositions with Western governments. This makes for difficult diplomacy. No doubt the Trump administration steps around this minefield by adopting a ‘maximalist’ approach. This maximalist approach has failed in the Ukraine, and again with demanding the end of the Iranian nuclear program, creates a scenario where opponents are left with little room to de-escalate for fear of losing face. The Iranian strike at Fordow looks like it may work to stop uranium enrichment. It will be a short-term success whilst we enter a yo-yo world of war-ceasefire-war. Trump will not metamorphose into Klemens Von Metternich. The short-termism of Iraq and Afghanistan has not been taken into account. The maximalist leap into war means the art of diplomacy is dead for it elevates the precedent of military solutions.

HL Mencken had his finger on the problems with modern liberalism. He wrote that:

‘One delusion is the Liberal doctrine that a prairie demagogue promoted to the United States Senate will instantly show all the sagacity of a Metternich … another is the doctrine that a moron run through a university and decorated with a PhD will cease thereby to be a moron…’

Today we inhabit both of these worlds. The British Foreign Secretary, Mr Lammy, believes Libya to be next to Syria. Liberalism and globalisation have impacted world diplomacy, creating chaos and multi-alignment. DEI is as bad for aerospace engineers at Boeing as it is for International Relations. Diplomacy reflects a culture of chaos. We are flying too close to the sun.

Brian Patrick Bolger LSE, University of Liverpool. He has taught political philosophy in universities across Europe. His articles have appeared in leading magazines and journals worldwide in the US, the UK, Italy, Canada, etc . His new book- ’Nowhere Fast: Democracy and Identity in the Twenty First Century’ is published now by Ethics International Press. He is an adviser to several Think Tanks and Corporates on Geopolitical Issues