Roundup: Tariffs, War On Iran

Everybody is tossing the words “Smoot-Hawley” around with regard to the Trump Tariffs. Of course, to what extent these tariffs are bargaining chips or whether this is a permanent change in the world economic are the hot questions. The answer is: We don’t know. On the one hand it depends on Trump’s intent and his calculations, on the other hand events sometimes have a way of taking on a life of their own. We can only wait and see.

Regarding the comparisons to the infamous Smoot-Hawley tariffs that are claimed to have caused the Great Depression, my impression is that many now hold the view that Smoot-Hawley didn’t actually cause the Great Depression, but it worsened already dicey economic conditions. I’m no economist, so I have no strong views. However, since I enjoy contrarian takes, here’s a site that argues that case—updated as of, huh!, this morning:

What Is the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act? History, Effect, and Reaction

To this day, economists differ on the extent to which the Smoot-Hawley Act worsened the Great Depression. Some say its effect was minimal because international trade was then a relatively minor part of the U.S. economy.

But no one seems to think it was a good idea. The official U.S. Senate website refers to Smoot-Hawley as "among the most catastrophic acts in congressional history."1

Senate.gov. "The U.S. Senate: The Senate Passes the Smoot-Hawley Tariff."

YMMV, based in part on how much credence you place in the US Senate.

People like Doug Macgregor believe the US will thrive and revive under the Trump tariff regime. Most of the people who hold that view tend to point to the rise of the US as a manufacturing colossus under a tariff regime in the decades preceding the First World War. My non-expert caveat is that the transition from an agrarian to a manufacturing economy was a very different thing than what we’re looking at now. The process of transitioning back to making “stuff” again, in the current state of technology, seems to me to be potentially vastly more complicated than was the process of developing a manufacturing economy to operate in tandem with a still enormous agrarian base. Is it possible that tariffs could actually hamper that process? I don’t know. There are all sorts of warring views that I have no way of reconciling—for example:

Tony Nash @TonyNashNerd:

China can subsidize 10-20% tariffs for a few months. They CANNOT subsidize a 54% tariffs.

This will have COLOSSAL impacts on China.

They can't fix domestic real estate, subsidize industries, build their military, fund the Belt & Road, etc, etc with this level of tariffs from their largest customer.

Arnaud Bertrand @RnaudBertrand:

This is a great example of main character syndrome.

It will actually have, at best, a marginal impact on China: exports to the U.S. represent less than 3% of its GDP.

It will however encourage the rest of the world to buy more from China in retaliation.

Or this:

Medvedev:

“Trump has roughly bent the global trading system over the table by imposing duties on nearly the entire world. The consequences will be global. Counter-tariffs will be imposed on goods from the United States. Old supply chains will be broken, but new ones will form.

And what about us?

Russia barely does any business with America anyway, or with the EU, for that matter: nearly all trade has been sanctioned. [However, Russian made vacuum tubes are still imported and highly regarded] But we are still developing, and at a decent pace: for the first quarter of 2025, growth stands at about 3%. So, no need for knee-jerk reactions. According to Lao Tzu's immortal advice, we should take a seat on the shore and wait for the enemy's corpse to float by. In this case, the decaying corpse of the EU economy.”

Obviously, the smart thing for America to have done would have been to ignore the blandishments of fast talking goofballs and grifters—Libertarians and Neoliberals—who dismantled our manufacturing base to make their own fortunes in the vast casino that Wall Street became. That’s water over the dam now. Here’s a striking phenomenological view of the results that we’re living with.

On to war! And here, of course, the hot topic is whether Trump is steering America towards war on Iran. Commenter It’s Just Me linked yesterday to a pithy article that critiques America’s immoral foreign policy over the past decades:

War With Iran Is a Path to Destruction

Have we learned nothing from our adventures in interventionism?

The main problem is the company [Trump] keeps. The swamp didn’t drain—it got a new guest list. Some of these advisers see Iran as a trophy, a chance to flex America’s muscles and settle old scores. Others are tethered to foreign capitals—Riyadh, Jerusalem—that would love to see us do their bidding and wreck Iran.

America has followed the neoconservative Zionists’ foreign policy desires for decades. Every one of their wars ends up killing, wounding, and starving hundreds of thousands of innocent people. Millions are homeless. The target countries become dysfunctional, creating generations of new enemies. The narrative is the same: They say a leader is hurting his people. He is worse than Hitler and he must go. But the warmongers are unapologetic about the disastrous results such as warlords running Libya and Afghanistan, and the chaos and destruction in Iraq. Now that the “horrible” Assad is gone, a dressed-up Al Qaeda is running Syria. How is that not alarming? Our government enabled and supported that destruction for years.

The Christian Zionists are not crying out about the two-millennia-old Christian communities, which are being driven out of Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Israel as a result of the wars they have supported. No apologies here either.

Is it possible that the warmongers calling for the attacks on Iran would be perfectly satisfied leaving a mess like the other countries they have caused us to attack? How is that in America's interest?

Today Larry Johnson elaborates in a more systematic way on the subject of whether Russia will come to Iran’s aid if Trump launches on Iran. I say ‘elaborates’ because yesterday I listened to a sorta debate between LJ and Scott Ritter. Unfortunately Ritter ranted at some length, which detracted from an important discussion. Ritter’s view is that basically that Iran brought this upon themselves with their enrichment program, which he maintains violates the non-proliferation treaty (NPT). For that reason, he argues, Russia will not come to Iran’s aid. Further, if Russia or China had any such intention they’d be active at the UN, trying to defuse the looming US attack.

My caveat here, which plays directly into LJ’s response, is that I see nothing in the NPT that allows the US to launch a war on a violator of the NPT. Further, the NPT, as written, isn’t a suicide pact nor does it provide carte blanche to nations with nukes to do anything they want to subject populations.

In his considered response, LJ presents what I believe are cogent reasons to believe that the new pact between Russia and Iran does actually provide the legal basis for Russia to come to Iran’s aid. Importantly, the Russia-Iran pact is based on the UN Charter, article 51, on self defense.

Will Russia Help Defend Iran Against a US/Israel Attack?

I will certainly grant Ritter’s argument that Russia always acts in a highly legal based way. However, I find LJ’s counter argument (read at the link for the details) cogent—Russia has provided legally for aid to Iran in the event of an attack and has certainly been greatly assisting Iran to prepare its defenses. I have always based my own view in this regard on the seat of the pants consideration of Iran’s absolutely key role in BRICS. My argument has been that an attack on Iran is—and IMO is intended as—an attack on Russia, China, and BRICS. I’ve included maps to illustrate the dynamics of this situation in the past, so here I’ll include the map that LJ uses:

IMO, it defies reason to think that Russia and China will stand idly by while Trump bombs this trade infrastructure into dust. In fact, matters may be getting a bit more complex. Yesterday we noted that Trump is expressing a willingness to speak to Iran through an intermediary—Oman (the lower center colored area on the map). Here’s another complication, which illustrates the danger of tying our national security to that of the Zionist entity:

In Warning To Turkey, Israel Strikes Several Bases Across Syria

What’s going on here is that Turkey—which has the second largest military in NATO, a highly capable one—has been slowly advancing its forces deeper into Syria, and most recently to the very bases that Israel attacked. The Turks are bringing their state of the art Russian S-400 air defense systems with them. This brings Turkey and Israel closer than ever toward a confrontation—Turkey has already demanded that Israel withdraw from all Syrian territory.

Gilbert Doctorow today pointed out (to Judge Nap) further complications. Doctorow raises precisely the point that I raised in a comment yesterday—the possibility, perhaps even the likelihood, that China would reunify with its Taiwanese province in the event of Trump initiating war in the Middle East. A further point that I raised—which relates also to Doctorow’s argument—was the decision of our allies in Japan and South Korea to respond jointly with China to Trump’s tariffs.

Judge: Professor, if the United States and Israel attack Iran, what is your opinion of the likely response by Moscow and the likely response by Beijing?

Doctorow: I think this is precisely what they've been discussing in Moscow with the visit of the of the Chinese Minister of Foreign Affairs these last two days. Nominally, the reason for the visit was to prepare for Xi's trip to Moscow for the May 9th 80th anniversary of the Day Celebrations, but I think the subject for discussion—directly with Putin which took place a day ago—was how they are going to prevent an American attack on Iran and/or react to one. I believe that what we've seen in the last two days, the Chinese military exercises staging an assault on Taiwan, staging a siege on Taiwan. I think these were not what they were explained to be. They were not a response to some remarks by the prime minister of of Taiwan to which Beijing took exception. No, [the Chinese exercises] were a message to Washington: ‘Watch out! You touch Iran and you lose Taiwan the next day.’ They're preparing for a Siege of Taiwan. The Russians can do something also, but not as dramatic.

Judge: Secretary of Defense Hegseth … was in Japan three days ago threatening China. I mean, isn't that absurd? How could the United States military possibly resist the Chinese military in the Chinese backyard?

Doctorow: At present time they could not. Of course, the logic here is something that extends all across the West. It is the same logic as Starmer or von der Leyen saying, 'We'll be ready for a war with Russia in five years!' But, wait a minute, we live today! And so it is with the statement that we're going to create a a very strong base in Japan to attack China or to neutralize China. That's very good, but we live today and the Chinese are quite capable of doing great damage to the United States and its interests right here and now, for which the United States has no remedy.

When coupled with the failure, to date, of Trump’s attempt to intimidate the Houthis—who have shot down two Reapers in the past 72 hours, and have continued their attacks on the USN—there may still be hope of avoiding another regional war.

Lastly, I can’t recommend highly enough the first 15 minutes (at least) of this John Mearsheimer video.