by Tyler Durden

University of Chicago professor Robert Pape tore into Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent's so-called "Economic D-Day" campaign against Iran, branding it a dangerous "escalation trap" that history shows will not force Tehran to fold, and may instead drag the United States deeper into war.

Appearing recently on the "Breaking Points" podcast, Pape, a longtime scholar of air power, blockades and sanctions, argued that Bessent is selling maximum economic pressure as an alternative to more fighting.

"That's not what it is," Pape told "Breaking Points" co-host Saagar Enjeti. "What it's really going to lead to is another escalation trap. And if anything, if he in fact goes forward, it would be more military war."

University of Chicago professor Robert Pape tore into Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent's so-called "Economic D-Day" campaign against Iran, branding it a dangerous "escalation trap" that history shows will not force Tehran to fold, and may instead drag the United States deeper into war.

Appearing recently on the "Breaking Points" podcast, Pape, a longtime scholar of air power, blockades and sanctions, argued that Bessent is selling maximum economic pressure as an alternative to more fighting.

"That's not what it is," Pape told "Breaking Points" co-host Saagar Enjeti. "What it's really going to lead to is another escalation trap. And if anything, if he in fact goes forward, it would be more military war."

Pape said the measures have never on their own won a major war or toppled a government in a major conflict. The professor highlighted the British blockade of Germany in World War I and the U.S. blockade of Japan in World War II, both of which ended only after grinding ground campaigns and, in Japan's case, the atomic bombs."

"Bessent is really not doing a good service to the world by saying that this is an off-ramp to escalation," Pape said. "All we need is one, sir. One case. And you know what? There's not a case."

Pape also warned that targets often lash back, explaining that sanctions slapped on Japan helped produce the Pearl Harbor attack, which he called a well-known and uncontroversial point, and that tightening the noose on Iran and its trading partners, including China, risks a similar spiral in which Tehran strikes back and Washington is forced to escalate further."

Claire's Observations:  It is Iranian oil which is, primarily, keeping the Chinese economy afloat... at least, those portions of that economy which are not already moribund.

China's President Xi is President Trump's invited guest for a White House visit, starting the 24th of this month.( This is on the official White House calendar; not yet confirmed on Xi's).

After Bessent's treatment of the Russian Finance Minister Siluanov at meetings with him paralleling those of the G-20 last Monday https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/europeans-blindsided-russian-finance-ministers-presence-g20-asheville, I would politely suggest to President Trump that he keep Bessent,  his EAD (Economic Attack Dog) as well and truly far away from Xi as is humanly possible (isn't there perhaps some  "pressing summit" in Antarctica to which Bessent needs to be dispatched then?!?) to explore what President Xi might be willing to do regarding Iran, if  the answer cannot, and will not be economic, for the reason I have already mentioned.

IF in fact these meetings happen, before  they do, someone needs to sit President Trump down, and explain the Asian concept of "face" in  simple, non-nuanced, "See Jane run" language he can understand, so that Trump realizes Xi has to have something tangible with which to come away from these meetings, that looks like a "win" to his home team.

And there is one thing on which I would almost be willing to place a wager, and that is... badgering President Xi about China's current dependence on Iranian oil, is NOT going to help US/China relations ONE BIT!!!

Because IF these meetings happen and go "mammary glands vertical", or don't happen at all, and Bessent has levered intensely against the Bank of China regarding Iran, China's response may well be martial, rather than economic.

I would like to politely suggest to President Trump, that such an outcome is not impossible, if the issue of China's relationship with Iran is not handled with the utmost geopolitical and economic finesse.