Richard Wolff: BREAKING: Pentagon Prepares for New Iran War as Hormuz & Bab al-Mandab Burn

Summary

Possible Renewed U.S. Action Against Iran

The host cites reporting in The Atlantic and Axios that the Pentagon has instructed U.S. Central Command to prepare for a possible resumption of major combat operations against Iran. The reports, as described in the interview, give no date and say President Trump has not made a final decision, though some U.S. and Israeli sources suggest strikes could begin before the November 3 midterm elections.

The host also points to continuing dangers around the Strait of Hormuz and Bab al-Mandab, including reports of burning tankers and escalating attacks in Yemen, and questions Trump’s claim that oil is flowing at pre-war levels.

Trump says the U.S. is beating Iran, that the nuclear threat is gone and the conflict will soon end, after which oil prices will fall. He also warns that an Iranian missile strike on a U.S. city such as Los Angeles or San Diego would be a major crisis.

Political and Economic Pressures

Richard Wolff argues that Trump’s conflicting statements—and the media’s repeated coverage of them—make it difficult for the public to establish what is happening. He describes this as “muddying the water”: sowing uncertainty while repeatedly promoting a reassuring message. In Wolff’s view, Trump is trying to get through an election in which rising oil, fuel and fertilizer costs could hurt Republicans.

Wolff says tanker attacks and higher insurance costs could keep oil prices elevated even if shipping continues. He links the energy situation to economic and political pressures in Europe and the United States. He says European countries’ break with Russian energy has left them dependent on U.S. diesel, while U.S. refiners can prioritize more profitable exports.

Wolff describes Trump as caught between farmers seeking limits on diesel exports and refiners opposing them. He says refiners warned that restricting exports would lead them to cut production, pushing prices back up. Wolff characterizes this as corporate power constraining government choices.

Protests and Political Discontent in Europe

Wolff portrays demonstrations in France—beginning with teachers and joined by students, unions and political groups—as opposition to cuts to social welfare and the wider direction of government policy. He argues that similar strains are present elsewhere in Europe.

He interprets support for military spending and Ukraine as part of a broader effort to preserve elite wealth amid economic decline. He frames these developments as part of a global anti-colonial shift in which countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America seek a more equal share of economic power.

China and Shifting Global Influence

Wolff says China’s central challenge is sustaining economic growth and creating jobs as people move from rural areas into cities. He contrasts this with what he sees as the United States’ challenge of managing relative decline and sharing influence with rising powers.

The interview also discusses a South China Morning Post report that Xi Jinping warned Trump about Japanese militarism during a meeting, in the context of U.S. requests concerning Chinese export restrictions on rare-earth materials. Wolff argues that China views Japanese military expansion through the history of Japan’s invasion of China, and says Beijing is unlikely to provide strategic materials without concessions.

Wolff’s Assessment of U.S. Foreign Policy

Wolff presents the possibility of renewed U.S. military action against Iran as a threat that may be intended partly for political effect. He argues that the United States has no effective military solution to its problems and could nevertheless attempt a dangerous escalation.

More broadly, he describes U.S. foreign policy as an effort to preserve an empire through pressure and threats. He says Trump’s references to U.S. cities being at risk reveal the potential costs of that approach to Americans themselves.

Finally, Wolff portrays Trump as focused on the competing demands of wealthy donors and business interests rather than long-term historical strategy. He argues that powerful economic groups can influence policy by threatening political consequences, and predicts that historians may judge the U.S. ruling class for failing to find more capable leadership during a period of relative decline.

Presenters and Contributors

• Host: Nema
• Guest: Professor Richard Wolff