In one of the scariest moments in modern history, we're doing our best at ScheerPost to pierce the fog of lies that conceal it but we need some help to pay our writers and staff. Please consider a tax-deductible donation.
ScheerPost Staff
The ongoing war against Iran is not just a regional confrontation; it is, according to economist and historian Professor Michael Hudson, a crisis with profound global economic and geopolitical consequences. Speaking on Glenn Diesen’s show, Hudson framed the conflict as a strategic effort by the United States to maintain control over critical energy resources, while simultaneously destabilizing global financial and trade systems.
U.S. Strategy and Global Implications
Hudson describes the war as “World War III in slow motion,” noting that energy, fertilizers, and other vital exports from oil-producing countries underpin the global economy. The U.S., he argues, has historically relied on controlling these commodities as leverage over other nations. As Hudson explains:
“The United States went to war with Iran and Venezuela for the same reason: to control oil exports and determine who benefits from them. This is not about Iran seeking nuclear weapons—it’s about maintaining U.S. dominance over global energy.”
By imposing sanctions on Iran, Venezuela, and Russia, the U.S. has attempted to channel global oil supplies through allies under American influence. Hudson warns that these actions are irreversible in the short term, disrupting trade, creating energy shortages, and undermining global stability.
Economic Ramifications
The discussion highlighted the interplay between geopolitics and the financialized U.S. economy. Hudson traced decades of low interest rates, quantitative easing, and asset price inflation, showing how these policies enriched financial institutions while leaving real wages stagnant and industrial production weakened.
“Since 2008, all growth has been financialized—stocks, real estate, and bonds. Meanwhile, 40% of Americans have no savings at all. Now, disruptions caused by the Iran war will cascade through energy and fertilizer markets, threatening an economic depression worldwide.”
Hudson also notes that the war’s effect on fertilizers and helium, essential for agriculture and industry, will exacerbate a looming global food and energy crisis.
Shifting Global Power
A significant portion of Hudson’s analysis focuses on the decline of U.S. hegemony. While previous decades allowed the notion of a “benign hegemon,” Hudson contends that the U.S. can no longer maintain dominance without coercion:
“A benign hegemon would support open access to trade and technologies. A declining hegemon, however, resorts to aggressive policies—blocking competitors, weaponizing trade, and imposing sanctions.”
This aggressive stance, Hudson argues, is forcing countries like China, Russia, India, and Iran to pursue self-sufficiency and alternative alliances. Europe, heavily dependent on U.S.-controlled energy flows, faces economic strain and the potential collapse of its industrial base.
Food, Energy, and the Climate
The interview also delved into the broader consequences for agriculture and energy security. Hudson emphasized that fertilizer shortages will reduce crop yields, raising food prices and driving instability in vulnerable regions:
“Without fertilizer, crop yields fall. Prices go up, and in crises, those with the most money get the remaining food. Africa and parts of Latin America will face severe challenges unless they develop self-sufficiency.”
Hudson highlights that the U.S. model of dependence on international trade and comparative advantage, which once enabled allied nations to thrive, is now being reversed. Nations previously reliant on U.S. networks must adapt or face shortages and economic collapse.
A Moral and Economic Fight
Finally, Hudson frames the conflict not only as economic but as a moral struggle over sovereignty and survival. He draws parallels with historical resistance movements, noting that Iran’s stance represents a defense against external domination:
“Iran’s refusal to surrender is about autonomy, self-support, and the ability to chart its own future. The U.S. has effectively declared war on any country that refuses to subordinate its interests.”
The interview leaves little doubt that the consequences of the war extend far beyond the Middle East. Hudson warns that without structural changes to global financial, trade, and energy systems, the world faces a prolonged period of economic instability, deindustrialization, and geopolitical fragmentation.
Key Takeaways from the Hudson-Diesen Interview:
- The U.S. war on Iran is primarily about controlling global energy exports, not nuclear proliferation.
- Financialized growth in the U.S. masks stagnation in real wages and industrial output, leaving the economy vulnerable to global shocks.
- Fertilizer, energy, and helium shortages will ripple worldwide, threatening food security and industrial stability.
- Declining U.S. hegemony is leading to coercive, aggressive foreign policies, forcing other nations toward self-sufficiency.
- The conflict represents a moral and economic struggle for national sovereignty, with long-term consequences for global order.
Hudson’s analysis underscores the interconnectedness of war, economics, and geopolitics. As nations navigate this crisis, the repercussions of the U.S.-Iran conflict may redefine the rules of global trade, energy policy, and international relations for decades to come.
Editor’s Note: At a moment when the once vaunted model of responsible journalism is overwhelmingly the play thing of self-serving billionaires and their corporate scribes, alternatives of integrity are desperately needed, and ScheerPost is one of them. Please support our independent journalism by contributing to our online donation platform, Network for Good, or send a check to our new PO Box. We can’t thank you enough, and promise to keep bringing you this kind of vital news.
You can also make a donation to our PayPal or subscribe to our Patreon.