Could Iran change Trump's agenda?

Donald Trump no longer sets his own country's agenda, for now. But losing that power is a minor problem compared to the scale of the conflict between Israel and Iran, which poses greater risks to his administration and the entire world.

According to a poll conducted this week by The Economist and YouGov, 60% of Americans believe their military should not be involved in the conflict between Iran and Israel. Only 16% openly support such military intervention.

Moreover, among Republicans, a 53% majority opposes military intervention by that country in the Middle East.

For reference, a Gallup poll from last April shows that 70% of Republicans supported President Trump's tariff policy, despite a majority believing that such taxes would lead to higher inflation.

And that is precisely the crossroads that could end the Trump 2.0 project.

The celebrated 2.4% general inflation in the United States last May had a component of lower energy prices that somewhat masked the effects that are beginning to be felt from the increase in the price of imported goods, which are clearly on the rise due to tariffs.

Many analysts are urging us not to declare victory over the issue of the safety of tariffs and their pass-through to consumer prices; even the Federal Reserve warns that the consumer price index could return to 3 percent.

Uncertainty is the key factor, because it's not clear that a direct US military action will inevitably impact oil, gas, and gasoline prices.

If Iran decides to attack Arab oil supply routes, the price of hydrocarbons will of course skyrocket, and the effect will quickly spill over into gasoline prices and, from there, into transportation activities, both for passengers and goods.

With a spike in fuel prices pushing up inflation, there could also be increases in business costs that would unhinge estimates of low inflation and complicate monetary policy.

With the U.S. economy in a fragile state, a rise in energy prices could have the dual effect of pushing up inflation and slowing economic activity, which could, among other things, be detrimental to Donald Trump's political cause.

There isn't a single positive side to armed conflict—when was a war ever opportune? Especially one with the scale of the countries involved in the current crisis in the Middle East. But if Donald Trump ultimately decides to take that military step forward, he will have to reconsider many of his announced policies.

Come on, let's forget about him keeping Greenland; he would see many of his most radical projects so far thwarted.

It would have to moderate its trade war to mitigate the negative economic effects of seeing the United States at war with Iran.

Now, just as uncertain as the future of that war is Trump's reaction if the conflict further disrupts the economic outlook.

With the U.S. economy in a fragile state, a rise in energy prices can have the dual effect of pushing up inflation and slowing economic activity.