“Facilis descensus Averno,” wrote Virgil: the descent is easy, but the ascent is the real challenge. This age-old maxim perfectly describes the trajectory of the Trump administration and its approach to global conflicts. Going to war was easy, almost instinctive, driven by the self-assurance of those who believe the world is a giant real-estate video game where every problem can be solved with a click of a button or a virtual show of force. But the reality is proving to be far more complex: war is not a “deal” to be closed in a “boardroom”; it is a living fabric that, once torn, cannot be easily mended.
The logic of the inexperienced tailor: when needle and thread are not enough
At first glance, making a hat, as my grandmother used to say, seems like child’s play: a little fabric, scissors, needle and thread, and the job is done. It’s the same down-to-earth logic that has been used to approach the ongoing conflict between the United States, Israel, and Iran: a few sham negotiations are enough to expose the enemy, a well-timed, targeted attack by Israel, and the desire to “throw a handful of dead bodies on the peace table” (as Benito Mussolini used to justify his joining Adolph Hitler in his aggression to France that looked to be won) by having the ally do most of the dirty work first, thus profiting with little effort.
However, as every tailor knows, the problem arises when it comes to shaping a cap. If you don’t calculate the “darts,” if you ignore the elasticity of the material, the cap won’t fit. It was Mussolini’s mistake and it seems to be Trump’s: underestimating the strength of the “fabric.” Geopolitical actors are not pieces of inert fabric; they are peoples with ideologies, religions, and passions. Reasoning with them using pure business logic means ignoring the soul of conflicts and what fuels them even as they appear to be dying. Faiths and identities do not accept invoices and cannot be negotiated with a trade discount.
Iran and the “Immaterial Tariff”: The Psychology of the Wallet
Iran has demonstrated that it has studied Trump’s psychology better than many Western allies. Knowing that the American president shuns the political costs of protracted wars, Tehran has invented a “global economic tariff.” Unable to win on the ballistic front, it has struck the trader’s only raw nerve: his own wallet, that of his voters, and those who support him.
By disrupting market fluidity through the terror of its drones and missiles and by raising energy prices, Iran has transferred the cost of the war directly to the homes of US citizens and its allies in the form of rising energy prices and a crashing stock market. It is a strategy of attrition that transforms the conflict into an invisible but unbearable tax. Trump, who had promised prosperity, now finds himself having to justify why his “grand bargain” is instead impoverishing voters in Washington, London, Berlin, Tokyo, or Rome. The descent into the underworld was rapid, but now the path to recovery is blocked by a wall of inflation that Iran is increasingly raising with attacks on its Gulf allies and threats to oil tankers, which insurance companies are responding to by dramatically raising premiums.
The loneliness of the “Ostrich”: Prime Ministers self-styled “friends” of the tycoon and the “bridge builders” without bridges
In this scenario, the role of European allies emerges in all its tragic ambiguity. The example of Italy is emblematic. The Giorgia Meloni government had invested heavily in the idea of a “privileged relationship” with Trump, presenting itself as the indispensable bridge between Washington and Brussels.
However, the reality of the facts has brutally contradicted this narrative. Trump acted without consulting or informing his self-styled “privileged partner,” dragging Italy down with him into the underworld through purely unilateral decision. Meloni’s response was an ostrich tactic: keeping her head in the sand to avoid criticizing her allied and preserving an ideological bond that, in practice, has proven to be one-sided. But how long can this posture last? European governments now find themselves in the position of “minority shareholders,” suffering losses without having decided on investments. Loyalty to the bomber risks becoming political suicide when the pressure from the electorate, impacted by the Iranian tariffs, becomes unbearable.
Towards a papier-mâché victory and a defeat in the midterm elections
The countdown to the midterm elections of November 3, 2026, has long been underway. Trump faces a choice: either pretend the cap isn’t misshapen but merely original and put it on his head, deluding himself into thinking it’s a new trend, or declare a “nonexistent victory” following the Greenland precedent. He will likely choose the latter, announcing he’s achieved his goals as soon as internal dissent and that of his allies (primarily Spain, France, and Great Britain) becomes unmanageable. Meanwhile, the liberticidal Iranian regime, under its new leadership, the Interim Leadership Council headed by President Masoud Pezeshkian—a leadership established by Trump himself through the elimination (to use a indulgent euphemism) of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei—is proving itself more noble than the Washington tycoon by apologizing to its neighbors involved in the defensive war with attacks on the US bases they host. His words, spoken without considering the potential strong reactions and criticism that have punctually come from inside and outside Iran, were: “I apologize to the neighboring countries that have been attacked by Iran.” (Ansa – Swissinfo).
It would be interesting to know when Trump or his faithful ally Benjamin Netanyahu would be capable of saying the same to the thousands of civilians, they helped kill thanks to the orders given to their armed forces (including women, children, and the elderly). Until the two become aware of the crimes they committed (if they ever manage to), we can provide the answer: they are not capable. While the Iranian president sought to appease his neighbors, the two leaders’ stance was one of extreme firmness and military assertion. Trump showed no intention of apologizing; instead, he forcefully claimed responsibility for the US attacks. On March 2, 2026, he declared Iran an “out-of-control nation” and stated that his goal was to eliminate the regime quickly (4-5 weeks). He also interpreted Pezeshkian’s apology as a sign of surrender (which was quickly denied) due to the pressure of American strikes. Netanyahu simply declared that Israel had destroyed much of Iran’s air defenses and achieved “total superiority.” Trump and Netanyahu’s statements completely ignore the fact that the elimination of the Iranian regime and the achievement of total superiority were achieved outside of international law (as noted even by a politician as reluctant to criticize the United States and Israel as Italian Minister Guido Crosetto) and the consequences caused to the civilian population.
Now, if the war lasts longer than expected and if the costs for the United States and its allies (who are feeling the pinch of inflation and are pushing for a quick conclusion) become unbearable, Trump’s exit from the underworld with a lie like the one he made about Greenland that the objectives have been achieved won’t mend the wasted or torn fabric without sewing the hat. The economic wounds, the fraying of transatlantic alliances, and the demonstration that the logic of the businessman fails against the passion of the people will remain as indelible scars. History teaches us that Mussolini’s “handful of dead” in a war he thought was already won and over did not secure a quick and advantageous peace. On the contrary, it remains to be seen whether Trump’s “paper victory” will be enough to save his presidency before the underworld presents him with the final bill and makes a recovery, or re-election, impossible.
