 The Long Sunset of Pax Americana: Welcome to the reality of Bellum Americanum ..
Since the dust settled over the ruins of 1945, the world has operated under the comforting, if somewhat delusional, umbrella of "Pax Americana." The term suggests a Roman-style peace enforced by a singular, stabilising hegemon. Yet, looking at the ledger of the last eighty years, the "Pax" feels less like a period of tranquility and more like a high-octane or (napalm) demolition derby. In reality, America hasn’t really been a peacekeeper; it has been a perennial combatant. Of the eighty years since World War II, the United States has been actively at war for forty of them. A 50% "uptime" for kinetic conflict. Perhaps it is time the history books swapped the Latin from Pax Americana to Bellum Americanum. The branding is catching up to the reality. With the U.S. Department of Defense effectively operating as a "Department of War" once again, the pretense of "defense" as a purely reactive posture is fading. A History Written in Cordite The timeline of American interventionism is not a series of unfortunate events, it is a sustained policy of global management via the barrel of a gun. It began in earnest with the Korean War (1950-1953), a "police action" that never officially ended, followed by the quagmire of Vietnam (1955-1975), which fractured the American psyche but failed to dampen the appetite for foreign entanglement. The turn of the millennium brought the "Forever Wars." Afghanistan (2001-2021) became the longest conflict in U.S. history, a twenty-year exercise in nation-building that ended precisely where it started. Then there was Iraq (2003-2011), and again in 2014), a war justified by phantoms and settled with exhaustion. Add to this the interventions in the Balkans, Libya, and the ongoing counter-terror operations across the Maghreb. The “period of"peace" starts to look remarkably bloody. The Architect of Change Then to include the darker cousin of open warfare: "Regime Change." Washington has long treated foreign cabinets like a game of musical chairs. Iran (1953): The classic CIA-MI6 playbook ousting Mohammad Mossadegh to defend U.S. and U.K. oil interests in the area. Iraq (2003): The ultimate, heavy-handed "reset" button. The Search for the mythical weapons of mass destruction to prove imminent threat as a casus belli. The (2026) Wave: The recent "extraction" of Venezuela’s Maduro and the escalating strikes on Iranian infrastructure mark a return to the most aggressive forms of interventionism. The Trump Escalation: More Bang, Less Talk While the campaign rhetoric often leans toward isolationism, the tactical reality under the second Trump administration is anything but quiet. The "endless wars" may be criticized in speeches, but they are being prosecuted with unprecedented mechanical efficiency. According to recent data from Statista and ACLED, the contrast between the Biden and Trump eras is stark. In his full four-year term, Joe Biden oversaw approximately 694 missile and drone strikes. In just the first year of his second term, Donald Trump has already authorized 658 strikes, nearly matching a four-year total in twelve months. 2026 is off to a flying start. The target list reads like a geopolitical hit list: Iraq, Iran, Nigeria, Somalia, Syria, Venezuela, and Yemen. This isn't just "America First"; it is "America Everywhere, All at Once." The strategy has shifted from the slow-burn counter-insurgency of the 2010s to a "strike first, ask questions later" doctrine. The goal appears to be the decapitation of threats before they can mature, regardless of the "shared rules" of the international order. Conclusion: What’s Next? As we navigate this continuing period of Bellum Americanum, the map of American interest continues to shift. The White House has proven it has no qualms about breaching traditional diplomatic boundaries if it perceives a strategic or economic "problem to be managed.” With Venezuela "neutralized" and Iran under a persistent cloud of cruise missiles, the Department of War is inevitably zooming in on the Caribbean’s most enduring outlier. As the U.S. plans to send more troops to the Middle East again. Let us not forget the hasty withdrawals from Saigon [1975 Gerald Ford], Kabul [2021 Joe Biden] plus the tragedy of the Iranian hostage rescue [Operation Eagle Claw 1980 Jimmy Carter}. Boots on the Ground or Bodies in A Bag, Let’s hope Operation Epic Fury does not become Operation Epic Disaster 2026 Donald Trump ... https://www.statista.com/chart/35728/comparison-of-us-foreign-military-strikes-under-biden-and-trump/
0 Comments
 Secretary Hegseth has publicly adopted a "no mercy" stance, stating on March 13 that U.S. forces are "playing for keeps" and operating under "maximum authorities." He has dismissed traditional rules of engagement as "stupid" and "politically correct," even following reports of high civilian casualties, such as the 170 deaths at a Minab school.
A "no quarter" policy is an order or threat that no survivors will be spared, meaning enemy combatants who attempt to surrender or are incapacitated will be killed rather than taken prisoner. Such a policy is explicitly prohibited under the 1907 Hague Convention and the 1949 Geneva Conventions, and its mere announcement by a government official is considered a war crime. On March 13, 2026, Secretary of War Pete Hegseth stated, "We will keep pressing. We will keep pushing, keep advancing. No quarter, no mercy for our enemies." He added that U.S. forces have "maximum authorities" to "unleash American power, not shackle it." Legal Definition: Under Article 23(d) of the 1907 Hague Convention IV and Article 40 of Additional Protocol I (1977), it is "especially forbidden... to declare that no quarter will be given." This applies to all combatants, including "irregular" or "terrorist" forces. The UN and various human rights organizations (including Al Jazeera and Human Rights Watch) have labeled the rhetoric as a "serious red flag." Legal experts note that the statement alone constitutes a "grave breach" of international law, regardless of whether it has yet been executed on the battlefield. Domestic Criticism: Senator Jeff Merkley and other U.S. lawmakers have condemned the language as "appalling," citing recent high-casualty events such as the Minab school strike (170+ dead), as evidence that this "maximum lethality" rhetoric is already influencing operational conduct. Secretary Hegseth has dismissed these legal concerns as "politically correct," suggesting the administration views traditional International Humanitarian Law (IHL) as an obstacle to achieving a total victory. This stance has created a significant rift with European allies, who have largely remained muted or critical of the "lawless rhetoric" emanating from the Pentagon. MANIFESTLY UNLAWFUL ORDER Under both the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and International Humanitarian Law, a "no quarter" order is considered "manifestly unlawful." U.S. service members have a legal and ethical duty to disobey such an order, as following it would expose them to prosecution for murder and war crimes. UCMJ Standards: Articles 90, 91, and 92 of the UCMJ require obedience to "lawful" orders only. An order is "manifestly unlawful" if a person of "ordinary common sense" would recognize it as illegal. Ordering the execution of surrendering or incapacitated soldiers is the textbook definition of such an order. The "Hegseth Shift": Since taking office, Secretary Hegseth has dismantled civilian oversight and replaced top Judge Advocates General (JAGs) to "unshackle" the military. However, legal experts from West Point's Lieber Institute and the Department of War's General Counsel have issued memos warning that his "no quarter" rhetoric qualifies as a speech offense and a federal crime under the 1906 War Crimes Act. Precedent (My Lai & Nuremberg): Historical rulings establish that "I was just following orders" is not a valid defense for clear atrocities. In the 1948 "High Command Case," U.S. courts convicted German officers specifically for issuing and following "no quarter" orders. Legislative Pushback: Senator Mark Kelly and other veterans in Congress publicly urged troops on March 14 to ignore "belligerent, lawless rhetoric," reminding them that their oath is to the Constitution, not to individual leaders' illegal directives. The current environment is highly volatile because President Trump has characterized calls to disobey illegal orders as "sedition." This creates a "legal pincer" for active-duty troops: disobey the Secretary of War and face immediate administrative or presidential retaliation, or obey and face future international or domestic prosecution for war crimes. #NoMercy #NoQuarter #WarCrimes This article was developed with Google Gemini and our Fact Checker and Foreign Correspondent Gems.  The Fed’s Iran problem ...
The war driven surge in oil prices has rippled through the global economy, battering Wall Street, house hunters, farmers and more. “The largest supply disruption in the history of the global oil market,” per the International Energy Agency, could also complicate matters for the Fed. Some economists and traders have lowered their expectations for rate cuts this year even as President Trump has urged immediate action. That could put Kevin Warsh, Trump’s pick for Fed chair whom the president expects will push for lower borrowing costs, in a bind. Brent crude, the global oil benchmark, traded at $98.99 a barrel this morning, after closing at a multiyear high yesterday. Its price has surged more than 35 percent since the U.S.-Israeli attacks on Iran began, despite efforts by the Trump administration to cap energy prices, including by easing sanctions on Russia and its oil. Jitters in the oil market remain high: Iran has begun laying mines in the Strait of Hormuz, the waterway through which 20 percent of the world’s oil exports flow. Mojtaba Khamenei, Iran’s new supreme leader, has pledged to keep the strait virtually shut. “A higher inflation path will make it harder for the Fed to cut soon,” David Mericle, the chief U.S. economist at Goldman Sachs, wrote to investors yesterday. Goldman now expects the central bank’s first rate cut of the year to come in September instead of June, citing the war and inflation. (June would be Warsh’s first meeting as Fed chair if confirmed by the Senate.) Futures traders today give a 41 percent chance of any rate cut this year, and certainly not before December. Before the war began, they were betting on two cuts. Warsh’s Senate confirmation hearing could be feisty. (No date has been set yet.) Trump’s nominee criticized a Fed rate cut in September 2024, but has appeared more supportive of lowering borrowing costs since Trump took office last year. Meanwhile, Trump continues to demand action, and fast. Yesterday he chided Jay Powell, the current chair, for not “dropping Interest Rates, IMMEDIATELY.” But the risk of war-driven inflation probably opens Warsh’s position on rates to tough scrutiny from lawmakers. Next week’s Fed meeting may offer big clues on what’s next. Officials will release their quarterly forecast on rate cuts. Credit for this post : Andrew Ross Sorkin The New York Times Deal Book March 13th 2026. Photo from our Adobe Stock library.  Heavy Lies The Hand… Beijing Struggles To Balance The Budget …
The “Iron Rooster” era of Austerity Begins. Finance Minister Lan Fo’an’s "Iron Rooster" (铁公鸡) budget is a declaration of fiscal austerity that effectively terminates the era of debt fuelled hyper-growth. In the gilded halls of the Great Hall of the People, the rhetoric usually matches the architecture, grand, sweeping, and expensive. But last week, the script flipped. Finance Minister Lan Fo’an didn’t promise a windfall, he promised a "Tight Balance.” Lan’s proudest boast was becoming an "Iron Rooster”. That’s a Chinese idiom for a miser who won't part with a single feather. He’s slashing administrative budgets by 10% and "breaking every cent in half." While efficiency is a virtue in a startup, it’s a vice in a stalling superpower. When a $18-trillion economy starts counting pennies on office parties, it’s not a sign of discipline; it’s a sign that the "Money Spinner" (land sales) has officially spun out. Bailing Out the Titanic The most damning line in the ledger isn't a cut, it’s a 300-billion-yuan injection into state-owned banks. For years, China’s local governments used "Hidden Debt" (LGFVs) to build bridges to nowhere, keeping GDP targets looking pretty. Now, that mountain of bad paper is threatening to avalanche onto the national banks. This 300-billion-yuan "top-off" is a red flare. It tells us that the systemic risk has finally breached the hull. Beijing is borrowing at the federal level just to keep the ATM machines working. The Ghost of the Chinese Consumer Wall Street was looking for a "Bazooka" of consumer stimulus. Instead, they got a "Water Pistol” to dampen domestic demand. Lan’s strategy relies on a "multiplier effect”, hoping a tiny 100-billion-yuan subsidy will trick the private sector into spending trillions. This is Financial Alchemy. You cannot "leverage" consumers who are watching their primary asset (real estate) deflate like a slow-leak tyre. By removing hard growth targets for the 2026–2030 Five-Year Plan, Beijing is signalling a grim hierarchy of needs: National Security: (Semiconductors, AI, Defense) — FUNDED. State Solvency: (Bank bails, Debt swaps) — PRIORITIZED. The Household: (Wages, Pensions, Consumption) — ABANDONED. The Bottom Line: A Slower, Sharper Dragon The "Iron Rooster" budget confirms our worst-case scenario: Austerity as Policy. By prioritising industrial hardware over human software, Beijing is flirting with the "Middle Income Trap." They are building the world’s most advanced factories to sell products to a world that is raising trade barriers, when their own citizens can’t afford to buy the output. Minister Lan might be able to save 300 billion yuan by being stingy, but he’s losing the future of the Chinese consumer in the process. In the world of global markets, an "Iron Rooster" doesn't lay golden eggs, it just sits on a shrinking nest. Based on an original article by Lingling Wei WSJ "Frugal ‘Iron Rooster’ Budget Signals Pain for Growth and Consumers" Content developed with Google Gemini and our “Publisher, Editor, Journalist, Correspondent” Gem. |
The Saturday EconomistAuthorJohn Ashcroft publishes the Saturday Economist. Join the mailing list for updates on the UK and World Economy. Archives
March 2026
Categories
All
|
| The Saturday Economist |
RSS Feed
