The reaction was immediate. Wall Street's major indices
slipped as investors reassessed geopolitical risks. The ripple effects reached
far beyond the United States. Pakistan Stock Exchange also came under heavy
selling pressure before recovering part of its losses by the close. Financial
markets have become hostages to political messaging emanating from Washington.
During the US presidential campaign, I wrote that it
mattered little whether Donald Trump or Kamala Harris won the election. The
occupant of the White House would change, but the powerful interests shaping
American foreign policy would remain remarkably constant. Recent developments
have only reinforced that conviction.
Washington's Iran policy appears to have become an exercise
in managing competing domestic interests rather than pursuing a coherent
diplomatic strategy. Every escalation benefits someone. Defence contractors
receive larger orders as regional insecurity grows. Oil companies gain from
heightened uncertainty in energy markets. Wall Street profits from volatility
that creates trading opportunities. Major media organizations thrive on
continuous crisis coverage that attracts audiences and advertising revenues.
None of these realities proves that any one of these
powerful constituencies dictates White House decisions. But when every major
policy shift repeatedly advances their commercial interests, skepticism is both
natural and justified. In politics, patterns often reveal more than official
statements.
The uncomfortable truth is that modern American foreign
policy increasingly resembles a marketplace where geopolitical crises generate
economic opportunities for influential stakeholders. Peace rarely produces
exceptional corporate earnings. Tension does.
This is why Trump's changing posture towards Iran deserves
closer scrutiny. The issue is not whether he personally seeks confrontation or
compromise. The more important question is whether any American president can
formulate Middle East policy free from the influence of the military-industrial
establishment, energy giants, financial markets and the corporate media.
Perhaps the real lesson is this - American presidents come
and go, campaign slogans change, and foreign policy narratives evolve. Yet the
beneficiaries of prolonged instability appear strikingly familiar. Until that
cycle is broken, the world will continue to pay the price for wars that are
declared in the name of security but often end by serving the interests of
power and profit.
