Q&A – Trump’s Use of Economics to Deescalate Worldwide Tensions - Driven By Braman Motorcars
Each day I feature a listener question sent by one of these methods.
Email: brianmudd@iheartmedia.com
Social: @brianmuddradio
iHeartRadio: Use the Talkback feature – the microphone button on our station’s page in the iHeart app.
Today’s Entry: Submitted via Talkback asking about the India-Pakistan conflict and whether the US would need to militarily intervene.
Bottom Line: In the grand scheme of geopolitical concerns on our radar, a la the new axis powers of China, Russia, Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea, Nicaragua, etc... an India – Pakistan conflict that at worst could lead to nuclear war wasn’t really on our radar. For those who may not know the impetus behind the recent India – Pakistan conflict isn’t new but rather an escalation of something that started after World War II.
In what is known as the Partition of 1947, the conflict between the two countries began with the partition of British India into two independent states, India and Pakistan, based on religious lines (India predominantly Hindu, Pakistan predominantly Muslim). This led to mass migrations, communal violence, and the displacement of millions, setting the stage for ongoing tensions. There have been on again off again skirmishes ever since pertaining to territorial disputes (as recently as 2021 prior to what’s happened in recent weeks).
The recent flare up in the India-Pakistan conflict was triggered by a terrorist attack on April 22nd in Indian-administered Jammu and Kashmir. The attack, claimed initially by The Resistance Front (TRF), an offshoot of the Pakistan-based terror group killed 27 people. India accused Pakistan of supporting the attack, which Pakistan denied. The escalation included a series of missile strikes leading to a total of 66 deaths preceding a Trump-administration brokered cease fire agreement late last week. And that’s a good place to pickup with today’s question pertaining to my level of concern regarding the conflict between the two countries and whether the U.S. would need to get involved...
In general, Pakistan is a bad actor. While it’s debatable about whether there’s state sponsored terrorism or not, what’s known is that they’ve tolerated the operation of Islamic terrorist organizations within the country. Aside from the current day issues with the TRF, let’s not forget that it was Pakistan where Osama Bin Laden was able to hideout for about six years preceding the elimination of the 9/11 mastermind by Seal Team 6. Notably, the Pakistani population is problematic as well. As an example, a Pew Research Center Study conducted in Pakistan following the killing of Bin Laden found that only 10% of the country’s population supported the U.S. operation to eliminate Bin Laden and only 14% of Pakistani’s said that it was a “good thing” that Bin Laden was dead.
For these reasons it’s concerning anytime we’re talking about war, potentially of nuclear proportions, with a country of people who are wired this way. On the other hand, Donald Trump is no Joe Biden or for that matter George W. Bush. Rather than U.S. military intervention, President Trump believes in the use of economic means to achieve policy objectives – and unlike his predecessor he’s successful at doing it.
It was no mistake that Donald Trump during his first term was the only post-World War II president to preside over a time in which there wasn’t an escalation of conflict anywhere in the world. That’s his preferred position and while he’s willing to use the full military capabilities of the United States to achieve peace if needed, as we know he ascribes to the philosophy of peace through strength. Yes, that means having a strong a capable military, but it also means having a strong and thriving economy that the rest of the world needs to maintain their own economy.
Trump isn’t the only president to attempt to use the economy to maintain or achieve peace, however he’s proven to be the most successful at doing it. For example, President Biden used the threat of sanctions on Russia as a deterrent to attempt to prevent their invasion of Ukraine. That obviously didn’t work and when Russia invaded Ukraine Biden, and other allies around the world issued a series of escalating sanctions against Russia. None of that worked. In fact, it actually aided Russia in its war effort.
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and subsequent sanctions against Russia, led to higher oil prices. Russia was able to leverage the higher price of oil, their largest export, as part of a Chinese trade deal signed shortly after the war began that led to Russia not only being able to fund their war with Ukraine through their economic agreement with China but that actually led to Russia becoming wealthier while financing the war, than they were prior to the war. That’s why sanctions by the west had no effect. Trump’s strategy is far wider reaching.
Trump’s approach is to use sanctions when needed, but to also threaten to impose tariffs and trade restrictions with countries that chose to do business with countries that he is sanctioning. Given Trump’s clear willingness to impose tariffs it has historically and more recently as in the India – Pakistan ceasefire arrangement had the desired effect. For these reasons I’m not especially concerned about the conflict between India and Pakistan and am far less concerned about an escalation of conflict anywhere in the world that might prompt a US response. Much as we saw in President Trump’s first term. We’re far more likely to see de-escalation of conflicts around the world a la potential peace being restored with Russia and Ukraine than we are US boots on the ground over the next four years.