Get the Ricochet app
Ricochet will work fine in a browser on your mobile devices, but for the best experience please download our app.
President Trump has publicly speculated that resuming military operations against Iran could trigger an economic catastrophe, warning of soaring gas prices and even a global depression. It is rumored that senior officials within the administration are driving this narrative in an effort to steer Trump away from finishing the conflict, as fears of Iranian long term impact on global oil markets appear to be exaggerated. Economist Glenn Hubbard argues that while energy markets and inflation deserve consideration, the role of economists is to analyze tradeoffs and identify ways to mitigate the economic costs of national security decisions; to inform policy, not determine it. On balance, he contends that the long-term costs of failed deterrence outweigh the short-term economic risks. So, as the administration weighs whether to return to combat or settle for an unacceptable status quo, is the greater economic and national security risk resuming the fight or leaving Iran's threats unresolved? And what price does America pay for failing to finish the job?
Glenn Hubbard is a nonresident senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, where his work is focused on a wide range of economic issues, including health care, poverty, public, corporate, and international finance, and financial markets and institutions. A former chairman of the President’s Council of Economic Advisers at the White House, Dr. Hubbard concurrently serves as dean emeritus and Russell L. Carson Professor of Economics and Finance at Columbia Business School. He has also served as a deputy assistant secretary at the US Treasury Department and as a consultant to the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, among other positions.
Read the transcript here.
Subscribe to our Substack here.
