The crisis surrounding Iran reveals how dangerous the flippancy of power can become when it speaks of war.

Wars usually begin with strategic mistakes. Rarely, however, do they continue “for fun.” And yet today’s global politics seems to be approaching exactly such a case, as was stated by the President of the United States. Meanwhile, regardless of the reason the conflict began or will continue, American analysts are expressing reservations about a war with Iran, invoking the memory of Iraq and, before that, Vietnam.

“When the use of force is presented almost as a joke, the problem is not merely diplomatic. It is deeply political and civilizational.”

References to the Vietnam conflict are resurfacing more frequently in discussions of the escalation around Iran. The comparison concerns not only the military dimension, but also the economic consequences a prolonged conflict could have for a great power and the international system. The Vietnam War was not merely a military or political failure for the United States. Its enormous fiscal cost severely burdened public finances and ultimately contributed to the crisis of the Bretton Woods system and the decoupling of the dollar from gold in 1971.

“A global superpower appears to be guided by decisions that change within a few days, or even within the same day, while they concern the fate of the entire planet.”

To this already dangerous geopolitical environment is added an element that, a few years ago, would have seemed unimaginable: the political frivolity with which matters of war are being treated.

The public reactions and joking remarks of Donald Trump about bombings and military actions cannot be considered normal for the leader of a superpower. When the use of force is presented almost as a joke, the problem is not merely diplomatic — it is deeply political and civilizational.

“A prolonged crisis in the Persian Gulf could trigger a rise in energy prices, increased inflation, and serious shockwaves in the global economy.”

In other eras, if a leader spoke with such flippancy about bombings and wars, public opinion would have considered him dangerous. Today, however, such statements are often treated as the new normal. A global superpower appears to be guided by decisions that change within a few days — or even within the same day — while they concern the fate of the entire planet.

The Vietnam analogy resurfaces because an initially limited engagement can easily transform into a process of gradual escalation with no political way out. In such cases, the strategy is no longer about victory, it becomes the management of an ever-expanding crisis.

The energy dimension makes the crisis even more dangerous. The Strait of Hormuz is one of the world’s most critical chokepoints for the transport of oil and natural gas. A prolonged crisis in the Persian Gulf could trigger a rise in energy prices, increased inflation, and serious shockwaves in the global economy.

Europe is particularly vulnerable to such a development, as it is heavily dependent on imported energy. Following the break with Russia, the European economy has become even more exposed to international energy fluctuations.

But the damage would not be confined to Europe. When Europe is hurt, the United States inevitably suffers too. The two economies are closely linked through trade, investment, and financial markets. A deep economic crisis in Europe would quickly spill over into the American economy.

The same applies to Israel. A prolonged conflict with Iran would not strengthen its position; it could instead trap it in a long-term state of military tension. In such a scenario, bomb shelters could risk becoming the primary living quarters for a large portion of the population.

At the same time, Israel risks losing something even more important: the support of millions of friends and allies in the West. In Europe and in the United States, a large segment of public opinion that traditionally supported Israel is beginning to pull away.

The question therefore becomes even harder to answer. What drove such an aggressive strategy toward Iran, a country of approximately 94 million people, at the risk of hundreds of thousands of casualties and enormous collateral damage for the entire world? Can the sole justification for a global conflict really be the bellicose statements of the mullahs or the threat of Hezbollah?

Darker interpretations are now appearing in the public debate. Some argue that Donald Trump’s decisions may be influenced by pressures related to the Epstein case — an affair that appears to touch more individuals than have so far been publicly identified.

Similar discussions are taking place regarding Benjamin Netanyahu. In his case too, many believe that his political and personal problems create a complex decision-making environment.

“The picture taking shape is that the global economic order is shifting in a way that weakens the European economic model, with consequences for the US as well.”

Meanwhile, as societies are steered toward a new cycle of conflict, certain economic and geopolitical actors appear to be accumulating wealth at an unprecedented pace. For many observers, this war presents itself almost as an attempt to shift the public agenda in both countries.

The fact is that the crisis in the Persian Gulf is no longer merely a regional conflict. It is becoming a factor that could redefine the balance of power in the global economy. Energy flows, supply chains, and international investments are directly affected by regional stability. A prolonged period of tension could shift capital toward new trade routes and trigger a realignment of the planet’s industrial centers.

“A prolonged crisis in the Persian Gulf would affect not only the energy trade but also the international financial architecture.”

In such a scenario, some analysts wonder whether the geopolitical trajectory now unfolding ultimately benefits other major powers. Europe appears to be under greater pressure, while countries such as Russia and China gain comparative advantages. The picture taking shape is that the global economic order is shifting in a way that weakens the European economic model, with consequences for the US as well.

A prolonged crisis in the Persian Gulf would affect not only energy trade but also the international financial architecture. Major upheavals in energy markets almost always spill into capital markets. Uncertainty drives capital movements, increased currency volatility, and a reassessment of investment strategies. In such an environment, economies with strong reserves of resources and technology gain an advantage, while more dependent economies — like many in Europe — find themselves under growing pressure.

“The critical question is who will be able to bear the economic and political cost of a prolonged crisis.”

But a war with a large Middle Eastern country is never without serious consequences. It is almost always the beginning of something far greater. Fortunately, Europe is behaving calmly and responsibly. The Greek government, too, is approaching the escalating tension with seriousness and pragmatism. Ensuring adequate energy reserves, maintaining immediate and effective defense reflexes, and pursuing responsible diplomatic management together paint a picture of institutional competence in an exceptionally unstable environment.

Because the fundamental question is not only who will prevail militarily. The critical issue is who will be able to bear the economic and political cost of a prolonged crisis.

Michalis Sallas is President of Lyktos Group, Honorary Chairman of Piraeus Bank, and a former university professor.