---
title: "After the Iran War, the World Will Never Be the Same"
type: "News"
locale: "en"
url: "https://longbridge.com/en/news/281602296.md"
description: "Renowned economist Michael Hudson considers the current conflict with Iran to be the \"Third World War,\" arguing that the disruption of energy supply chains combined with soaring US interest rates will lead to the most severe global recession since the Great Depression. Hudson characterizes this as a \"systemic rupture\" of the global order rather than a mere downturn, with the greatest danger lying in the international community's lack of thought and preparation for alternative systems"
datetime: "2026-04-03T04:13:13.000Z"
locales:
  - [zh-CN](https://longbridge.com/zh-CN/news/281602296.md)
  - [en](https://longbridge.com/en/news/281602296.md)
  - [zh-HK](https://longbridge.com/zh-HK/news/281602296.md)
---

> Supported Languages: [简体中文](https://longbridge.com/zh-CN/news/281602296.md) | [繁體中文](https://longbridge.com/zh-HK/news/281602296.md)


# After the Iran War, the World Will Never Be the Same

Economist Michael Hudson has warned that the disruption of energy supply chains, coupled with soaring US interest rates, will lead to the most severe global recession since the Great Depression of the 1930s.

On April 3rd, in a podcast with geopolitical commentator Glenn Diesen, the renowned classical economist Michael Hudson delivered a highly impactful analysis of the current global macroeconomic trends, the struggle for energy control, and the fragility of the financial system.

(Left: Michael Hudson, Right: Glenn Diesen)

Michael Hudson stated bluntly that **the current war with Iran is the "Third World War," due to the global economic impact of its core energy resources: oil, natural gas, and fertilizers.**

He believes **the global order is facing a systemic rupture, and the underlying logic that has driven global economic growth for decades – the US-centric order of trade, finance, and security – is disintegrating in a non-linear fashion.**

Hudson further explained that **regardless of the outcome of diplomatic negotiations, the disruption of energy, fertilizer, and helium supply chains is a fait accompli.** **These disruptions will trigger massive debt defaults, amplified exponentially by the financial leverage system, with destructive power sufficient to end the US financial asset bubble built on zero interest rates since 2008.**

Michael Hudson provided an extremely pessimistic macroeconomic outlook:

> **No matter what happens, the world is heading into the most severe depression since the Great Depression of the 1930s, and there is no way to avoid it.**

## The Strategy of Oil Control: A Logical Extension from Iraq to Iran

Michael Hudson stated in the podcast that the US military action against Iran follows a consistent strategic logic: **using control over key nodes of global oil supply as leverage to constrain the foreign policy behavior of other nations.**

He pointed out that the US had previously imposed sanctions on Iran, acted against Venezuela and brought its oil under control, and pushed allies to blockade Russian energy. The result is that countries willing to comply with US sanctions find their oil sources increasingly concentrated within the US-controlled system.

Hudson said:

> This is the same logic as Trump using tariffs to create chaos and force other countries to concede.

He believes the US intends to complete its strategic loop of controlling the entire Near East oil-producing region by controlling Iranian oil, with Iran being the "last missing piece" in this puzzle.

Hudson also noted that the Trump administration's statements on this issue were exceptionally direct, "We want Iran's oil," echoing previous statements on Syria, Iraq, and Venezuela.

**He emphasized that across administrations – from George W. Bush to Obama and Biden – no US president has publicly criticized Trump's actions, indicating a consistent policy across party lines.**

## Supply Chain Disruptions: The Compounding Impact of Fertilizer and Helium Shortages

Hudson stressed the physical supply-side damage caused by the current conflict, arguing that its impact extends beyond energy to a broader range of commodities.

Helium supply from the Middle East has been cut off, with production facilities damaged, leading several global companies to initiate rationing plans. Meanwhile, although Iran currently allows tankers to pass through the Strait of Hormuz at a cost of $2 million per vessel, its fertilizer exports remain blocked.

Hudson stated:

> The world is entering its agricultural planting season, and the fertilizer supply is already cut off.

**He believes that declining food production will drive up prices, with the hardest-hit regions being Africa and parts of Latin America, which have long relied on export-oriented monoculture agriculture and have very limited food self-sufficiency.**

Hudson added that Brazil and Argentina, with their strong agricultural base, can still manage, but the situation for African countries is worrying. Their vulnerable, export-oriented single-crop agricultural structure, established under the World Bank after World War II, makes them extremely fragile.

## The End of the Zero-Interest Era Will Trigger a Debt Chain Reaction

Hudson analyzed the current supply chain shock within the broader context of US financial vulnerability.

He believes the system of financial asset inflation, built on ultra-low interest rates since 2008, is facing a risk of systemic reversal.

He described the mechanism: **After the 2008 financial crisis, the Federal Reserve injected cheap funds into the banking system through zero-interest policies. Private equity firms like Blackstone borrowed at extremely low costs, acquired numerous companies, and operated them with debt leverage.**

Concurrently, real estate, stock, and bond prices continued to rise, making financial asset inflation the primary driver of wealth growth. However, real wages remained stagnant, and 40% of Americans currently have no savings.

Hudson pointed out that the current 30-year mortgage rate has exceeded 5%, and the yield on 10-year US Treasury bonds has risen to 4.5%. **This means the low-interest-rate environment that sustained the entire debt pyramid has vanished. Private equity firms and banks will be unable to refinance their debts at current interest rates, and the "Ponzi chain" is facing a break.**

Hudson said:

> Once defaults occur, debt contraction will accelerate exponentially, which is the essence of a depression.

**He believes that the payment chain defaults triggered by supply chain disruptions will create a superimposed shock on this already fragile financial structure.**

## Energy Shortages Will Burst the Tech Stock Expansion Bubble

Hudson also specifically highlighted the structural contradiction in the market's current rebound, where the leading sector is technology, which is most dependent on energy.

He pointed out that the expansion plans of the seven tech giants that have driven the Nasdaq index's rise in recent years are highly dependent on stable and cheap electricity. However, domestic US power output has not grown substantially. These companies are now planning to establish computing infrastructure in countries like Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Bahrain, aiming to be closer to abundant energy sources.

According to Hudson, Iran has viewed this strategic move as a security threat and has launched military strikes against these facilities, signaling to the Gulf states: **As long as these countries continue to invest their oil revenues into the US system and maintain strategic alignment with the US, Iran will not feel secure.**

Hudson stated:

> The tech stock rally is merely a market illusion. The expansion logic of these companies is based on the assumption of Middle East energy availability, an assumption that has now been shaken.

## Europe's Predicament: The Cost of Following Sanctions Policy Becomes Apparent

At the international system level, Hudson believes Europe is paying a heavy price for following US sanctions policy and has yet to realize the severity of the problem.

He pointed out that **Europe** has announced it will completely stop importing Russian oil and gas soon, but **Germany's** GDP has been in continuous decline since cutting off Russian energy supplies in 2022, and the entire continent is following Germany's path towards deindustrialization.

He also mentioned that **Ukraine** has cut off gas pipeline supplies to Hungary and some Central European countries. This action is effectively an economic war against a NATO member, yet NATO has tacitly accepted it.

Hudson is equally pessimistic about the situation in the **United Kingdom**. He believes that after the deindustrialization under Thatcher and Blair, the UK lacks the real economy base to export and earn foreign currency for imports. Furthermore, North Sea oil and gas reserves have significantly dwindled, posing a severe challenge to its economic independence.

Hudson said:

> Europe appears to be collectively heading towards economic self-destruction. Instead of addressing the energy crisis, governments are cutting social spending to increase military budgets.

## Global Order Faces Systemic Rupture

At the end of the interview, Hudson definitively characterized the current situation and questioned the use of common terms like "recession" and "downturn."

**He believes that terms like "recession" and "downturn" imply that the system can recover and return to its normal track after adjustments, but what is happening now goes far beyond that.**

**He described it as a "systemic rupture," where the underlying logic that has driven global economic growth for decades – the US-centric order of trade, finance, and security – is disintegrating in a non-linear fashion.**

He pointed out that the end of US power is not coming from external challengers but from US policy choices. Imposing sanctions on almost all disobedient countries and weaponizing international trade, finance, food, and energy have ultimately left the rest of the world with no choice but to establish alternative systems.

Hudson stated that his greatest concern is the lack of thought within the international community about "what comes next." There is no clear alternative international monetary system, no multilateral institutions to replace the UN, and no new international legal framework.

> **No one is seriously discussing what we need to replace all of this with, and that is precisely the most dangerous aspect of the current situation.**

**The full interview transcript follows (AI-assisted translation):**

> **Glenn Diesen**: Welcome back. Today we have Professor Michael Hudson to discuss the impact of the Iran war on the global economy. As always, thank you for joining us again.
> 
> **Michael Hudson**: It's a pleasure to be back, Glenn.
> 
> **Glenn Diesen**: We often talk about the ongoing deterioration of the US and global economies, all built on a foundation that is clearly unsustainable. The US is aware of this. Some countries are trying to adapt to the new reality, others are trying to delay, and some are attempting to reverse what has happened. And this war against Iran seems to be exacerbating all the dangerous signs we've been discussing. It's hard to imagine the world returning to its previous state after this war.
> 
> I'd like to hear your assessment. This war impacts the global economy on multiple levels – energy is obviously the first, but fertilizers are also key. How do you see the far-reaching implications of this war?
> 
> **Michael Hudson**: As we've discussed before, I consider this the Third World War. The reason is clear: the energy, fertilizers, and other commodities exported by oil-producing countries are crucial to the entire world, making this war globally significant.
> 
> Although the US stock market has risen 1000 points in the past hour or two – because the market assumes everything can be reversed. Trump says Iran is willing to negotiate, and there are reports online that Iran says it just wants to protect itself, so the market fantasizes that the world can return to its former state, not just pre-war, but to the 19th, even the 18th century.
> 
> **However, this is by no means just a war within Iran. As we discussed, this is a war waged by the United States to maintain control over the global economic jugular vein – by controlling oil, because oil is indispensable to all countries. The reason the US is going to war with Iran is the same reason it went to war with Venezuela last month, kidnapped its president, and brought Venezuela's oil under US control. This way, the US can decide who gets Venezuelan oil and who gets the revenue from its export.**
> 
> The US knows that to base its foreign policy on the ability to cut off global oil supplies, it must prevent any other country from independently exporting oil without US control. To date, the US has imposed sanctions on Iran (which remain in place), then on Venezuela, and then on Russia. Consequently, any allies following the US in sanctioning Russia can only obtain oil from US-controlled regions.
> 
> For this reason, the US was so insistent last week on controlling the Strait of Hormuz – through which most Saudi and OPEC oil is exported, apart from the Saudi pipeline. Trump clearly heeded the advice of his military advisors: any troops attempting to occupy islands in the Strait of Hormuz would become targets and be militarily untenable. His advisors asked him: Donald, don't you just want the oil? Trump admitted it.
> 
> He made it clear that the real purpose of waging war on Iran has nothing to do with Iran seeking nuclear weapons – Iran has never truly sought them; nor does it have to do with Iran's foreign policy. What the US wants is Iran's oil, just as it wanted to occupy Iraqi territory years ago and indeed did so. **Therefore, this war is identical to Trump's tariff policy – essentially saying: If you don't act as our diplomats demand, we will disrupt your economy. In Trump's own words, it's about using access to the US market as leverage to get countries to lower their tariffs.**
> 
> On the issue of Iran, his logic is the same: seize Iran's oil to complete the US's long-standing plan since around 2003 to gain complete control over OPEC oil-producing countries. Iraq, Syria, Libya... a series of oil-producing countries have successively fallen under US control, and Iran is the last one that has not yet succumbed. Now, the US is singly seeking to control the oil fields of the Middle East, thereby establishing strategic dominance over the world.
> 
> The problem is, Iran will not allow itself to be conquered. Although Iran has stated that if other countries can guarantee its security, it is willing to resume oil exports and stop blockades. However, Iran's primary condition for "security" is the permanent withdrawal of all US military bases from the Middle East – and the largest military base, of course, is Israel. This is something the US clearly cannot agree to.
> 
> Another condition Iran will demand for its security guarantees is the lifting of all sanctions imposed by US allies – Europe, Japan, South Korea, etc. Without the lifting of sanctions and the withdrawal of US military presence, meaning, before the US effectively acknowledges defeat on the Iran issue, the world cannot return to its former state.
> 
> Let's stretch the point, even if the US miraculously announced it was abandoning its imperial ambitions and willing to become an ordinary country abiding by UN rules – which is obviously impossible – oil supplies have been disrupted, and helium supplies from the Middle East have been damaged. Helium is already out of supply, and companies that relied on helium – both domestically in the US and globally – have begun to reduce their usage; fertilizer supplies are also being cut. Although Iran allows every ship that pays $2 million to pass through the Strait of Hormuz to transport oil, it does not allow fertilizer exports. And at this very moment, the world is entering the planting season.
> 
> Therefore, no matter what happens next, the world will plunge into the most severe economic depression since the Great Depression of the 1930s, and it is unavoidable. This is precisely why the current stock market "recovery" is so baffling – the market seems unable to accept the reality that the actions of the US and Israel are irreversible. Who will compensate Iran for its losses? Sorting out the entire situation will likely take at least the rest of this year. So, to directly answer your question: the US economy and other parts of the world are heading towards an extremely severe economic depression.
> 
> **Glenn Diesen**: Regarding the energy aspect of the entire situation – I find that the US has had a clear policy trajectory over the past few decades, and Trump, compared to his predecessors, has often been more direct, even unvarnished. He openly said: in Syria, we want their oil; in Venezuela, we want their oil; and now against Iran, it's still about wanting their oil. Other presidents might have thought the same thing but wouldn't say it out loud.
> 
> But I want to probe further: how will all of this impact the financial system? What is the connection between energy trade and the US financial system? In such a highly financialized economy, once something goes wrong in the energy sector, does something within the US begin to collapse?
> 
> **Michael Hudson**: First, regarding your first point – Trump's policies are merely a continuation of those of previous US presidents, with nothing new. Did you notice? Whether it's Biden, Obama, or the two Bushes, no former president has criticized Trump's current actions. In fact, German leaders are applauding Trump, even though they refused to open Spanish airspace, Italy has blocked Sicilian airspace, and France has done the same. Countries are still maintaining sanctions. No country in the world has publicly accused Trump of being a war criminal or violating international war laws. Everyone is hesitant, as if even imagining a world not dominated by the US makes them uneasy.
> 
> Regarding the financial system, the burden on the financial sector has been extremely heavy since the 2008 mortgage crisis. The Obama administration's solution was to implement a zero-interest-rate policy, which helped banks escape insolvency. Low interest rates made it profitable for banks to lend to real estate, stocks, and bonds, thereby not only inflating the collateral value of mortgages and corporate loans, pulling the US financial system out of negative asset territory, but also creating huge profits for the entire Wall Street financial sector.
> 
> Since 2008, US wage growth has been almost stagnant, and 40% of Americans have no savings. All wealth growth has been financial growth – real estate, stocks, and bonds. This is a direct product of the zero-interest-rate policy. Extremely low interest rates made it profitable for private capital: large non-bank institutions like Blackstone borrowed from banks at extremely low rates of about 1%, acquired various companies, and engaged in so-called "leveraged buyouts" – a new term coined to describe such operations. They bought companies, extracted as much profit as possible, and maximized financial returns through debt leverage. At ultra-low interest rates of 1% or even 2%, as long as the return slightly exceeded the cost of capital, they could make huge profits.
> 
> Thus, a massive inverted financial pyramid was built, based on bank credit and the Federal Reserve system. Treasury Secretary Bentsen noted that the Federal Reserve provided substantial credit to banks, using various assets as collateral. Monetarist economists, like Milton Friedman, always had a mistaken assumption: that money creation would lead to an increase in the consumer price index. But the purpose of bank loans has never been that – bank loans are used to buy assets, to buy real estate, stocks, and bonds. The value of a house, an office building, or a listed company depends on how much the bank is willing to lend against it. The lower the interest rate, the larger the loan amount that the same asset return can support.
> 
> The result is: the US labor force is exploited, the real economy and industrial economy are hollowed out, and everything is used to satisfy the demands of the financial sector. This inflation of financial asset prices has attracted large inflows of pension funds and private investment capital, with everyone betting that this financial debt game can continue to operate. And the only way to sustain this game is to continuously roll over debt, preventing debtors from defaulting.
> 
> However, just this week, the 30-year mortgage rate exceeded 5%, and the yield on 10-year Treasury bonds rose to 4.5%. The zero-interest-rate era has abruptly ended. The large banks that lent at extremely low rates and lent to private equity firms suddenly find that their borrowing costs cannot be recovered – this Ponzi scheme is heading for collapse.
> 
> And the chain disruptions caused by the Iran war – oil, natural gas, ammonia, fertilizers, sulfur, helium – each breakpoint will trigger debt defaults. Once defaults occur, debt contraction will spread at an exponential rate, forming a downward spiral of collapse. This, is the economic depression.
> 
> **Glenn Diesen**: It is indeed difficult to predict how the situation will unfold, as there are too many variables and too many parties involved. It's almost unimaginable that any country in the world could remain unscathed; energy alone is enough to affect the globe.
> 
> If we broaden our view to other major powers, how do you see the impact of this war on them? For example: in terms of energy wars, it's not just Iran; NATO has been trying to cut off or restrict Russia's access to key maritime routes like the Black Sea, Baltic Sea, and Arctic. There's also the seizure of Russian oil tankers, and now even confiscating Russian oil, and attacking its refineries. India will also be severely impacted – the US just persuaded India to reduce its purchase of Russian oil, and now it has to encourage India to buy more in order to maintain market stability.
> 
> How do you view the broader international system's response to all of this? Because the US is heavily promoting that this is Iran's fault, but in reality, it is the US and Israel that have launched the war against Iran.
> 
> **Michael Hudson**: The international system is not adjusting effectively. On the Russian side, European and NATO countries have announced they will stop buying Russian gas and oil – although in practice they have continued to purchase it in various ways since 2022. Europe says it will stop importing Russian oil and gas by May at the latest. Russia's response is: then why not stop now? Europe has threatened to tear up all long-term contracts, and with the situation in the Strait of Hormuz tightening, Russia has no difficulty finding other buyers.
> 
> Europe following the US in sanctioning Russia is tantamount to economic suicide. They should have learned from Germany's experience – since cutting off Russian energy in 2022, Germany's GDP has been in continuous decline, and the entire European outlook is likely to follow suit. Not only that, but Ukraine has cut off gas pipeline supplies to Hungary, the Czech Republic, and other countries. These are non-NATO countries, and Ukraine's action is akin to declaring war on Hungary, yet NATO sides with the aggressor – this logic is fundamentally flawed. I really don't see how NATO and the EU can survive all of this.
> 
> This economic crisis will eventually force governments to make choices: either violate deficit limits and provide subsidies to the public to cope with soaring energy prices; or, as German Merz said, we must reduce living standards, cut social spending, and allocate funds to the military.
> 
> The narrative of "needing US protection against the Russian threat" is merely a myth that has been constantly reinforced. Russia has no interest in invading Europe; its strategic focus has long shifted to Asia.
> 
> Worth noting is also the change in vocabulary. Thirty years ago, when I studied archaeology, the region of Iraq and Iran was called the "Near East," later changed to the "Middle East" – Middle East implies a middle ground between Europe and Asia. Now, the more accurate term is "West Asia" – it is no longer an "East" in some direction, but part of the Asian continent. The center of global growth is shifting towards Asia, leaving Europe and America behind. The term "West Asia" is a subtle expression, implying that Asia is the future, not the West. This is precisely the division occurring in the world today: one bloc consists of US allies in Europe and the Western Hemisphere, plus Japan, South Korea, and the Philippines in the Far East; the other bloc is centered in Asia.
> 
> **What we are witnessing is not the commonly discussed "clash of civilizations," but rather an assault by the United States and its allies on civilization itself – an assault on national sovereignty, the principle of non-interference in internal affairs, and the laws of war (attacking civilian targets, undeclared wars, surprise attacks). Almost every norm of international law has been broken, not just in recent years, but arguably over the past few decades, by the United States. Trump and his diplomatic team have openly stated: we no longer need international law; it no longer serves US interests. Yet, it is international law that should be the foundation for maintaining civilized order.**
> 
> From Ukraine to Israel, and then to Christian fundamentalists, we see the erosion of individual freedom and dignity by ethnic and religious hatred. Yet the US frames this as a "democracy versus authoritarianism" clash of civilizations – with "democracy" of the Ukrainian and Israeli type on one side, and "authoritarian" regimes on the other. "Authoritarianism," in this context, simply means having a government strong enough to resist this assault on civilization. In this regard, Iran's resistance is even more resolute than Russia's.
> 
> Iran truly has no choice; it is fighting for its survival. This reminds me of Patrick Henry's cry during the American Revolution: "Give me liberty, or give me death!" Iran possesses a spirit of martyrdom that Americans may not fully grasp, just as African tribes in the 19th century resisted European colonialists with their flesh and blood against machine guns – this is a moral imperative: we fight for a way of life, resisting those who seek to enslave us and strip us of our autonomy. This war is fundamentally a battle of morality, which ultimately translates into economic and trade battles, thus driving the deep division of the world.
> 
> Regardless of any eventual compromise Iran makes on oil transit, this division will persist. **This is the United States' last resort to maintain its hegemonic position – a hegemony that can no longer be based on its own prosperity, nor attract other countries by offering mutually beneficial solutions. US foreign policy has clearly placed its own interests above all other nations.** However, other countries have not yet fully realized that continuing to depend on the US means being plunged into the abyss of economic depression, shutting down major industries, causing massive unemployment, and heading towards deindustrialization. Meanwhile, West Asia and indeed all of Asia are booming, and this is the future direction of the world.
> 
> Unfortunately, no one has seriously considered: what institutional reforms and structural transformations do we need? This is not a marginal adjustment. I recall the birth of the term "Great Depression" – at the time, people used the word "depression," which was meant to be a mild term, implying just a temporary dip, after which there would be a recovery. However, as the crisis evolved into a true abyss and eventually led to World War II, the word became weightier. Later, the term "recession" was coined, which is even more euphemistic, meaning to slow down a bit and then get back on track.
> 
> But the growth trajectory that the Western world relied upon has now ended. It's not just stagnation; economies are genuinely contracting, as seen in Germany and Europe. For the Global South, the situation is even more dire – they cannot compete with richer Asian countries for oil, natural gas, helium, fertilizers, and other necessities, and many countries will fall into hardship.
> 
> Businesses in various countries can no longer repay bank debts, and the rupture of payment chains will extend to countries burdened with enormous foreign debt – they will have to pay for soaring energy, fertilizers, and other commodities with trade deficits. All of this has gone beyond the scope of any regression analysis or trend forecasting; it is a complete "off the scale" situation.
> 
> Even looking at today's Wall Street rebound, the biggest gains are still in the monopoly giants of the high-tech information sector. But these seven leading Nasdaq tech giants rely heavily on energy for their expansion. And US power supply growth has stagnated, with insufficient energy to support them. So they are turning to energy-rich regions – Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Bahrain, where Google, Amazon, Facebook, and other companies are setting up operations.
> 
> **But Iran has stated: as long as OPEC economies maintain a symbiotic relationship with the US – investing oil revenues back into the US, relying on US investment – they are complicit in threatening Iran's security. By attacking these tech centers in the Gulf states, Iran sends a signal to other Arab sheikhdoms: you must align with Asia, not continue to be vassals of the US – otherwise, you are a threat to us, and your existence provides convenience for the next US attack.**
> 
> This is not just a problem for the financial system, but fundamentally a problem for the information technology sector – the sector that has sustained the entire stock market boom and the massive industrial ecosystem built around it.
> 
> **Glenn Diesen**: I find it interesting that for the past four or five decades, academia has been discussing the concept of a "benevolent hegemon" – that the US maintains its dominant position by constructing an order beneficial to all parties, and countries should rationally recognize the advantages of such an arrangement. This theory assumes the US has an overwhelming advantage and lacks effective competition.
> 
> But since the 1970s and 80s, scholars have been asking: what happens when US hegemony begins to decline, when other countries possess competitive technology, their own naval power, and rising currencies and economies, and are no longer willing to be dominated by the US?
> 
> The answer is: a "benevolent hegemon" is benevolent because it provides open sea lanes, free access to technology, and the freedom to use its banks and currency. But once the hegemon begins to decline, it faces a dilemma: either cease to be a hegemon, or cease to be benevolent. What we are seeing now is precisely this more aggressive posture – forcibly controlling international oil supplies, imposing restrictions on Russian oil and gas trade. All of this was foreseen by many, yet it is still shocking. My question is –
> 
> **Michael Hudson**: Before you continue, I'd like to make a point: we need a more accurate term than "recession" or "downturn." Those who make predictions don't really understand what they're talking about. "Downturn" implies that, like a business cycle, there are ups and downs, and it will eventually recover. But statistically, there is no such cyclical pattern – there is only continuous ascent, then collapse, then ascent, then collapse. It's a ratchet effect, not simple fluctuation.
> 
> "Downturn" suggests a slow process symmetrical to "upturn." But the reality is: the upturn is slow, exponential growth, and the end is collapse – not a downturn, but a collapse. What we are experiencing now is a collapse. If other countries were prepared, had seriously considered "the end of the US-dominated system is inevitable, what should we build to replace it?", then perhaps it could be called a "downturn." But they haven't. So what we are seeing is the end of an era, not a downturn, but a sudden shift.
> 
> And this end is not coming from outside – no foreign war, no external force has destroyed US hegemony. The end comes from within the US. The US places its own interests above all other nations: we hate Iran because we cannot control it; we hate Iraq and Syria because we cannot control their oil. Just days ago, Trump was furious with Europe – because Europe did not send its navy into the Persian Gulf to do his dirty work. He said: you want oil, why don't you get it yourselves? This is your problem, not our war!
> 
> From the two Bushes, to Obama, and then to Trump, it is the United States that has cut itself off from the rest of the world, effectively declaring war on the entire world and forcing the world into a situation where it has no choice but to side with Iran. This is the most shocking aspect: the US has personally ended its own empire.
> 
> Those who talk about "downturns" always say it's a slow evolutionary process. But they never acknowledge the fundamental hostility of the US towards other nations: the US explicitly states that we will not participate in any international institution where we do not have veto power; any country seeking independent autonomy will be considered an enemy and labeled an "authoritarian regime." "Authoritarianism," in this context, simply means a country having the courage to say, "We want to go our own way and will not bow down to American-style democracy."
> 
> What we are witnessing is systemic change – all the connections and operating logic that formed this system in the past have now ended. The world is trying to rebuild itself, but almost no one has seriously thought about what this means. Although guests invited to your show occasionally mention this, very few people truly realize the gravity of the issue.
> 
> Many have not even considered: to escape the US-dominated International Monetary Fund, World Bank, United Nations, and the world courts and armies controlled by them, we must establish our own international organizations, and ultimately, an independent military force to protect ourselves. Otherwise, Iran and the entire Middle East, along with countries that have been subjected to US-initiated wars since the 1950s, will inevitably repeat the same mistakes. This situation will not happen again, at least not in the same way. Only then can we truly usher in a world with a complete international legal system and rules of warfare, thereby completely avoiding falling into crises like the current one.
> 
> However, today no one is seriously discussing: what kind of monetary system, financial system, and trade system should be established? And what kind of new international legal system and mechanisms should replace the long-obsolete United Nations – just as the League of Nations, established after World War I, became a relic by World War II.
> 
> **Glenn Diesen**: Well said. Identifying the flaws and shortcomings of the existing system is important, but more crucial is – what comes next? We should be having more discussions about this.
> 
> My final question is a more specific one: when we focus on energy and fertilizer, can you walk us through how the chain reaction will gradually transmit?
> 
> **Michael Hudson**: Everyone's answer is the same: without fertilizer, agricultural production will decline; with declining production, prices will rise – this is how the market works, the wealthy will preferentially buy the remaining food. When a crisis comes, farmers will actually benefit more from reduced output, crop failure, and soaring prices than in times of good weather.
> 
> In the US, agricultural subsidies actually encourage farmers to grow corn to produce fuel ethanol. This is absurd. In a rational society, these farmers should be growing food to feed the people, not producing fuel for cars.
> 
> **How other countries will respond, I cannot say. But it is foreseeable that some countries will shift their planting focus from export crops to food crops to ensure their domestic supply. The entire world will increasingly realize the necessity of food self-sufficiency – this is the only way to counter the US weaponizing trade goods like food, oil, fertilizer, and anything else that can be used as a "choke point." Trade must not be weaponized.**
> 
> In terms of regions, there will be many places – especially in Africa – that will face warnings of food shortages and even famine. Among the major Latin American countries, Brazil and Argentina have no major agricultural problems; their soybean production is sufficient and can provide high-protein food. While Westerners may not accept it as readily as Asians, its nutritional value is very high.
> 
> But Africa is the truly worrying place: since World War II, under the endorsement of the World Bank, Europe has forced Africa to develop a distorted single-export agricultural structure, destroying the food self-sufficiency capacity that was forcibly cultivated during wartime. Now, Africa is once again facing wartime hardship, and self-sufficiency is the only way to survive. This transition to self-sufficiency may not be a short-term emergency measure, but rather a long-term trend, profoundly changing the international division of labor between traditional surplus and deficit countries. **The priority of food security will displace the export-oriented monoculture agriculture model long promoted by the World Bank, as well as the model of foreign-capital-dominated resource extraction and land rent exploitation.**
> 
> **Glenn Diesen**: It's interesting that history has come full circle. After World War II, countries allied with the US enjoyed reliable international trade channels and could confidently pursue specialization, maximizing the principle of comparative advantage – not needing to grow their own food, not needing to develop their own fertilizers, and relying entirely on imported energy. Meanwhile, countries that were enemies of the US had to pursue self-sufficiency and were forced to develop independent technologies.
> 
> Now, the US-led system is struggling, and the entire landscape is beginning to disintegrate. We see that some of its allies lack strategic autonomy, which is alarming. Europe is the most typical example. Before we conclude, do you have any final thoughts?
> 
> **Michael Hudson**: Let's look at the UK. The UK certainly has channels for foreign trade, but what will it use to pay for imported food, energy, and other necessities? The Thatcher and Blair combination – Conservative and Labour governments working together – has completely deindustrialized the UK. What can the UK offer the world now? The North Sea oil fields are largely depleted, and reserves in the Norwegian and Scandinavian North Sea are also dwindling. What about countries that have followed neoliberal economics and promoted deindustrialization? What should they do now?
> 
> **Glenn Diesen**: We will soon find out the answer. It's astonishing how quickly everything has changed. In the 1990s, people generally believed in the "end of history" and thought this system would continue forever. Today, we are facing this immense crisis. Many had long warned that a war against Iran would dramatically worsen all deep-seated contradictions. Now, all of this has become reality. Thank you, as always, for taking the time to share your profound insights on these major issues.
> 
> **Michael Hudson**: I'm glad you gave me the opportunity to discuss these important topics.

### Related Stocks

- [Occidental Petroleum Corporation (OXY.US)](https://longbridge.com/en/quote/OXY.US.md)
- [HSPC (603353.CN)](https://longbridge.com/en/quote/603353.CN.md)
- [United States Oil (USO.US)](https://longbridge.com/en/quote/USO.US.md)
- [iShares Global Energy ETF (IXC.US)](https://longbridge.com/en/quote/IXC.US.md)
- [iShares US Oil Equipment & Services ETF (IEZ.US)](https://longbridge.com/en/quote/IEZ.US.md)
- [SttStrtSPDRS&POil&GasExplor&ProdtnETF (XOP.US)](https://longbridge.com/en/quote/XOP.US.md)
- [ProShares Ultra Bloomberg Crude Oil (UCO.US)](https://longbridge.com/en/quote/UCO.US.md)
- [The Energy Select Sector SPDR® ETF (XLE.US)](https://longbridge.com/en/quote/XLE.US.md)
- [Vanguard Energy ETF (VDE.US)](https://longbridge.com/en/quote/VDE.US.md)
- [VanEck Oil Refiners ETF (CRAK.US)](https://longbridge.com/en/quote/CRAK.US.md)
- [Stt Strt®SPDR®S&P®Oil &GasEqpmnt&SvcsETF (XES.US)](https://longbridge.com/en/quote/XES.US.md)
- [iShares US Oil & Gas Explor & Prod ETF (IEO.US)](https://longbridge.com/en/quote/IEO.US.md)
- [VanEck Oil Services ETF (OIH.US)](https://longbridge.com/en/quote/OIH.US.md)
- [United States Brent Oil (BNO.US)](https://longbridge.com/en/quote/BNO.US.md)

## Related News & Research

- [A Recession Model That's Never Been Wrong Just Hit 49%. That Was Before the Iran War.](https://longbridge.com/en/news/281383747.md)
- [Near-term oil prices hit record premium over later deliveries after Trump vows more attacks on Iran](https://longbridge.com/en/news/281570397.md)
- [Trump says Iran has asked for a ceasefire, US wants to see Hormuz open first](https://longbridge.com/en/news/281390478.md)
- [TRADING DAY-Oil Strait back up again](https://longbridge.com/en/news/281575673.md)
- [Oil up over 1% as Mideast uncertainty keeps market jittery](https://longbridge.com/en/news/281301508.md)