“War against a foreign country only happens when the moneyed classes think they are going to profit from it.” —George Orwell
Global war, as it was orchestrated in World War I and World War II, has yet to take root again — despite what appears to be sustained efforts by powerful financial interests, often associated with the City of London and broader global networks.
Into that pattern steps U.S. President Donald Trump, acting as a persistent disruption.
Rather than accelerating conflicts, his actions have often dampened them — throwing "fire blankets" over potential flashpoints and complicating long-standing geopolitical scripts.
Nowhere is this more apparent than in Iran.
Whether by design or consequence, recent actions suggest a shift away from escalation and toward containment.
The result: a region that could have tipped into catastrophic war instead remains volatile — but short of ignition.
History offers a useful lens.
Since the fall of ancient Rome, powerful financial and political elites have often treated war as a tool — hedging outcomes, backing multiple sides, and shaping narratives through designated villains.
These conflicts frequently end not only in destruction, but in financial resets that benefit those positioned in advance.
If figures like Vladimir Putin or Iran's ruling clerics are not cast as the central architects of a broader global conflict, a critical question emerges: how are systemic crises explained without a central antagonist?
Strip away the conflicts of the past two decades and a broader pattern becomes visible.
War, in this view, functions as both distraction and mechanism — masking deeper ambitions tied to control over economic systems, population movement, and governance structures.
Debates surrounding globalization, economic restructuring, and emerging societal models have been unfolding for over a century, evolving from early 20th-century policy shifts to modern discussions around urban design and digital economies.
Against this backdrop, Trump's policies represent a disruption.
Whether one supports or opposes them, they have altered the trajectory.
First came intensified efforts against transnational criminal networks, particularly narcotics trafficking routes tied to Latin America.
These actions aimed not only at border security, but also at financial flows associated with illicit activity.
Second, immigration enforcement expanded significantly, paired with renewed emphasis on election integrity.
These issues became politically intertwined, highlighting deep divisions within U.S. governance and raising broader questions about institutional trust.
Third, tariffs and trade policy were used to challenge existing global economic arrangements, with the stated goal of reasserting U.S. sovereignty over supply chains and industrial capacity.
Then came Iran — a critical geopolitical node. The apparent strategy: apply pressure while avoiding full-scale war, seeking to weaken destabilizing elements without triggering a regional collapse or nuclear confrontation.
Such moves have not gone unnoticed.
Traditional power centers appear increasingly reactive, and in some cases, exposed.
Longstanding mechanisms of influence — financial, diplomatic, and global — are being tested.
Recent events illustrate this tension.
Disputes over military basing rights, disruptions in key maritime chokepoints, and sudden shifts in insurance and shipping markets point to the complex interplay between state power and financial leverage.
Control over risk — who insures it, who absorbs it — can shape global outcomes as much as military force.
The City of London and globalists are in panic.
Amid this shifting landscape, two critical vulnerabilities are coming into focus:
Energy and Food
If either system is significantly disrupted, the consequences would be immediate and far-reaching. If both are affected simultaneously, the impact could be systemic.
On the energy front, efforts to trigger sustained price spikes have so far fallen short.
Yet instability remains. Industrial incidents, refinery closures, and regulatory pressures continue to constrain supply in key regions, leaving markets sensitive to shocks.
Food systems face their own pressures.
Fertilizer production depends heavily on inputs concentrated in geopolitically sensitive areas. Disruptions — whether from conflict, industrial outages, or policy decisions — can cascade into reduced agricultural output.
At the same time, farmland availability, supply chain logistics, and shifting regulatory priorities add further strain.
Connecting both systems is transportation.
Modern agriculture and distribution rely on diesel-powered logistics.
A critical component in maintaining emissions systems for these engines is Diesel Exhaust Fluid (DEF), which depends on urea — a byproduct tied directly to fertilizer production.
A shortage in one sector can quickly ripple into the other, threatening the movement of goods from field to market.
The result is a fragile equilibrium.
Would you prefer lab grown meat, insects and 15-minute cities or individual sovereignty?
This is the real battleground: not defined solely by conventional warfare, but by the stability of the systems sustaining life.
Energy, food, and transport form the foundation.
Disrupt them, and the effects are universal.
In such a scenario, wealth alone offers little protection.
If supply chains falter and goods disappear, the issue is no longer price—but availability.
This is the real war.
Everything else is a battlefield.
Brig Gen (ret) Blaine Holt is a former Deputy Representative to NATO, lifetime member of the Council on Foreign Relations, tech entrepreneur, podcast host, and Newsmax contributor. The views presented are those of the author and do not represent those of the U.S. Government or Department of Defense. Read more Brig. Gen. (ret) Blaine Holt Insider articles — Click Here Now.