NOURNEWS: Perhaps the most striking reality of the Iran-U.S. war in recent days is not what Washington says about the situation in Iran, but rather the picture that data from Western media and institutions are painting of the situation inside the United States.
Donald Trump says that “the Strait of Hormuz is open,” while the U.S. administration continues to speak of maintaining economic pressure on Iran. But if Hormuz has truly returned to normal, why has maritime traffic through the waterway still failed to return to normal levels, instead falling to near-historic lows?
U.S. diesel inventories have dropped to their lowest seasonal level in more than four decades, while the cost of the war has begun to reach even farms across America’s Corn Belt. This contradiction is an important point for understanding the war’s new phase.
Reuters has reported that despite a limited increase in traffic, commercial shipping through the Strait of Hormuz remains far below normal levels. On one day, just 10 cargo vessels passed through the strait, compared with a 10-day average of 15 vessels. Another Reuters report said overall traffic remains at only around 5 to 15 percent of normal levels.
In other words, a nominally “open” Strait of Hormuz does not necessarily mean a “normal” Strait of Hormuz.
But the impact of this situation has not remained confined to the Persian Gulf.
Bloomberg reported that U.S. inventories of distillate fuels, most of which consists of diesel, fell to 103.4 million barrels in the week ending August 21—the lowest seasonal level in the available data going back to the early 1980s.
More importantly, the decline has come just ahead of the season when demand for heating fuel and agricultural activity typically increases—precisely the period when pressure on the market could intensify.
This is where a geopolitical war begins to turn into a problem at the heart of the U.S. economy.
The Financial Times has described the situation as the worst financial crisis facing U.S. grain farmers in 40 years. The cost of diesel and fertilizer has surged, and a Nebraska farmer told the newspaper that phosphate fertilizer, which cost around $470 per ton roughly a decade ago, now costs more than $900.
An estimate by the American Farm Bureau Federation also points to $31 billion in losses for producers of nine major crops this year in the absence of government assistance.
In other words, what was initially defined as an instrument of pressure against Iran is now transferring a significant share of its costs to the U.S. economy.
But the story does not end with the economy.
The Associated Press has reported that U.S. stocks of Patriot interceptor missiles in Europe have reached a level described by U.S. and NATO officials as “critical.” According to the report, around 1,500 of the 2,330 U.S. Patriot interceptors have been expended, with the war in Iran identified as the main factor accelerating the depletion.
This picture changes the meaning of a “war of attrition.”
In a war of attrition, the question is not simply who inflicts greater damage on the other side. The key question is who can afford to sustain the cost of maintaining pressure for a longer period of time.
Washington is calling for continued economic pressure and a blockade aimed at forcing Iran into submission, while simultaneously facing three forms of pressure of its own: pressure on energy supplies, pressure on the economy, and pressure on military stocks.
Reuters has also reported that, as diplomatic efforts to reopen the Strait of Hormuz continue, Trump has for now chosen the path of economic pressure and said that the United States has no intention of talking to Iran.
This raises an important strategic question:
If the objective is to wear Iran down, does Washington itself have sufficient capacity to absorb the costs of a war that could become prolonged?
A naval blockade does not come without a price. Maintaining it requires warships, aircraft, fuel, ammunition, interceptors, logistics and a sustained military presence. Every additional day that the situation continues not only puts pressure on the adversary, but also consumes part of America’s own capacity.
Perhaps this is why the situation in Hormuz should not be assessed simply by asking whether the strait is “open” or “closed.”
The real question is: For whom is the Strait of Hormuz still manageable, and for whom is the cost of maintaining it becoming greater?
Washington says economic pressure is intended to push Iran to the point of collapse. Yet data published by Western media suggest that the war is simultaneously creating pressure on America’s energy sector, agriculture, inflation and military stocks.
Under these circumstances, the main battlefield has expanded far beyond the Persian Gulf. Its effects are now reaching American farms, livestock producers and severe meat shortages, fuel storage facilities, supply chains, and even the stockpiles of Patriot missiles.
And perhaps this is the war’s biggest surprise:
The United States continues to speak of “maximum pressure.” But the strategic question is no longer simply how much pressure Washington can impose on Iran. It is how much it can afford to pay to sustain that pressure.
Nournews