A Global Trade Crisis in the Making?

by Craig D.

U.S. President Donald Trump has introduced a controversial trade policy through his social media platform, declaring that any nation conducting business with Iran will no longer be able to trade with the United States. This unprecedented move raises serious economic and diplomatic concerns that could reshape global commerce.

The Domino Effect on Global Trade

If countries comply with Trump’s directive, they risk economic instability. Take France, for example—if it adheres to this policy, it would remain solely dependent on trade with the U.S. But what about goods neither France nor the U.S. produce? Industries requiring crucial components, like aviation and automobile manufacturing, could face supply chain disruptions, leading to layoffs and rising unemployment.

Alternatively, nations such as the Netherlands, by maintaining trade with countries that import Iranian oil, could avoid these shortages. While they would lose access to the U.S. market, they would retain trading relationships with the rest of the world—potentially benefiting from direct Iranian oil imports to secure their energy needs.

If multiple nations reject Trump’s attempt to dictate their foreign policy, it may be American citizens who suffer the most. The U.S. market relies heavily on imports, and restrictions on trade partnerships could result in empty shelves, business closures, and widespread job losses. If economic hardship intensifies, public unrest could follow, sparking domestic turmoil unlike anything the country has seen before.

A Geopolitical Standoff

While some argue Iran poses a global threat, this perspective depends largely on national alliances. For countries in Southeast Asia, South America, and Europe, Iran is not necessarily viewed as an adversary. The nation’s most vocal opponents remain Israel and, by extension, the United States—which has long backed Israeli interests. However, Iran views Israel as a direct threat, particularly due to its actions in Palestine.

Historically, diplomatic disagreements have not prevented trade. Nations frequently engage in commerce with governments they may not align with politically or religiously. A biblical example of this can be found in King Solomon’s construction of the Temple in Jerusalem—foreign labor and materials were sourced from regions such as Lebanon, despite their differing beliefs and governance systems.

Similarly, history shows that trade does not require ideological alignment. Nations have long exchanged goods without adopting the cultural or governmental frameworks of their trading partners. Trump’s latest policy, however, appears to challenge this norm—effectively demanding that foreign nations submit to U.S. directives as if he were their own leader.

Is the U.S. Prioritizing Israel’s Interests?

Trump’s position raises another critical question: Is the U.S. enforcing this tariff because Iran is perceived as an enemy—or because Israel considers it one? The U.S.’s unwavering support for Israel suggests the latter, but should a single nation’s geopolitical stance dictate global trade policies?

China’s Free Trade Agreement: A Missed Opportunity?

In contrast, China recently announced a free trade initiative with other Asian nations, eliminating tariffs on Chinese imports. This approach aligns with Trump’s supposed objective of reducing trade restrictions, yet he did not embrace the deal. If his focus were truly on tariff-free trade, logic would dictate that he supports such agreements.

A closer analysis suggests that Trump’s true priority is compelling foreign nations—especially China—to purchase all U.S.-made goods, rather than simply fostering open trade. This expectation is fundamentally flawed and contradicts basic economic principles. Businesses place orders based on consumer demand, not political pressure. Imposing trade mandates that disregard market forces undermine global commerce.

A Trade Policy Without Ethical Foundation

Trump’s trade stance ultimately fails the test of fairness, economic practicality, and ethical reasoning. No country can dictate its trade partners’ purchasing habits without consequence. The Christian ethos of commerce centers on mutual benefit—companies only order what their customers demand, ensuring sustainable trade relationships.

While Trump’s rhetoric aims to project strength, the economic repercussions of his policies may reveal a different reality. If businesses and governments push back against this directive, it may become clear who truly holds the power in global commerce—and it may not be Trump.