Stephen Cho | Coordinator of the Korean International Forum
The world stands amid the storm of World War 3. The Trump administration’s “tariff war” has only intensified the turbulence. As the leading power of the imperialist camp, the United States—though weakened—still exerts considerable influence over global affairs. President Trump now finds himself entangled in multiple dilemmas across the economic, military, and political spheres. Trump’s dilemmas are the grave binary choices he faces, together with the fundamental and principal contradictions that, as president of the United States—the head of the imperialist camp—he cannot escape. How he confronts these contradictions will inevitably shape the course of global affairs. On the eve of the full escalation of World War 3, it is no surprise that the world is closely observing what has come to be known as “Trump’s dilemma.”
1. In the Economic Sphere: Triffin’s Dilemma
Trump’s “tariff war” weakens the foundations of US dollar hegemony—what is known as Triffin’s dilemma. For decades, the United States, as the issuer of the world’s reserve currency, maintained deliberate trade deficits, enjoying material affluence, while offloading the inflationary costs of its overissued dollars onto the rest of the world. If Trump continues the “tariff war” in the current manner, it will predictably lead other countries to reduce their exports to the United States, thereby decreasing their holdings of US dollars. This weakening of dollar hegemony will, in turn, enhance the relative power of BRICS. Whenever centrifugal forces arise within the imperialist core, they are inevitably accompanied by a corresponding centripetal consolidation of the anti-imperialist camp. In short, Trump’s “tariff war” is undermining the dollar’s status as the world’s reserve currency. He may win some battles, but he is on course to lose the war.
Money is a peculiar commodity, serving as the universal equivalent. Without convertibility to gold, however, it remains nothing more than mere paper. The survival of the 1944 Bretton Woods system, even after the suspension of the dollar convertibility to gold in 1971, was attributable not only to the military and political conditions of the “Cold War” but also, economically, to the decisive role of the subsequent “petrodollar” system. After the collapse of the Cold War order, the United States labeled Iraq—which had challenged the petrodollar system—as part of the ‘axis of evil’ and overthrew the Hussein regime for that very reason. For the same reason, Iran has now become the next target in West Asia (the Middle East)
The problem is that the 2014 Fortaleza system, designed to replace the shaky Bretton Woods order, has functioned in a manner entirely different from the imperialist camp’s intention, once China and Russia joined the anti-imperialist camp. In reality, China, together with Russia, brought India, Brazil, and South Africa into BRICS, and by further integrating the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), has developed these structures into the core poles of the anti-imperialist camp—counterbalancing the G7 and NATO, respectively. Alarmed by this, the imperialist camp attempted to impose on China the same “Plaza Accord” framework that the United States had successfully imposed on Japan and Germany in 1985, but China’s resolute refusal rendered this effort a complete failure. Subsequently, the imperialist camp hastily put forward “decoupling” and “de-risking” policies as a response, but these likewise proved largely ineffective. At present, its last resort has been to draw China into the conflict after Russia, branding both as part of a “New Axis of Aggressors,” and thereby constructing a new “Cold War” framework—effectively provoking World War 3.
In this situation, Trump’s “tariff war” has paradoxically become a catalyst for rifts inside the imperialist camp and, at the same time, tightening the unity of the anti-imperialist camp. , Facing the mounting backlash from Europe, Canada, Japan, and the ‘Republic of Korea (ROK, South Korea),’ it has already had adverse effects on the US-centered alliance system. India and Brazil, both subjected to a 50 percent tariff “bomb,” have moved to deepen cooperation with China and to consolidate their alignment within BRICS. It is no coincidence that Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi attended the August 31 Tianjin meeting of the SCO as a guest of honor. Likewise, Japan and the European Union—compelled to invest $550 billion and $600 billion respectively in the United States and import vast amounts of US energy—have also entered into friction with Washington. Particularly acute is the case of the ‘ROK,’ whose GDP and foreign exchange reserves are less than half of Japan’s, yet which is being pressed to provide more than $600 billion. In response, the Lee Jae-myung administration of the ‘ROK’ refused to give final approval, and then, as a means of pressure, the Trump government even illegally detained some 300 Korean workers in the state of Georgia and virtually forced their deportation. Such coercion and oppression have fueled public anger, shifting previously pro-US sentiment in the ‘ROK’ toward anti-US for the first time since the Korean War.
At a time when Trump, together with Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, has pursued an oil-production increase that pushed crude prices down to $65 as of September 15, the imposition of steel tariffs has simultaneously driven shale gas production costs beyond that level—an imbalance that can only result in the mass bankruptcy of shale companies. While bin Salman’s calculus is that short-term losses can be offset by eliminating competitors to secure greater long-term gains, Trump’s counter-strategy is premised on continuing oil production and preventing price increases through the lifting of sanctions on Russia and Iran. The decline in oil prices is one of the most decisive points that Trump’s Republican Party is aimng at to win the November 2026 midterm elections. It is precisely Trump’s assessment—that, from the standpoint of economics and national interest, engaging in dialogue with Russia and Iran is more advantageous—that poses the biggest obstacle for the warmongering forces within imperialism seeking to escalate conflicts against those states.
Not only oil but also the prices of other commodities—and consequently the prices of manufactured goods sold within the US—are at risk of soaring under the “tariff war,” making relations with China crucial to preventing such a surge. Through vague reciprocal tariff arrangements and artificial tactics of threat and pressure (jawboning), it may be possible to stave off inflation until the end of this year, but such a trajectory cannot be sustained beyond that point. Trump is well aware that the “tariff bomb” will inevitably translate into rising domestic prices in the end. Every move cuts both ways: if he fails to manage the adverse consequences of the “tariff war” in a sophisticated manner, he cannot avoid electoral backlash and eventual defeat. In this sense, inflation stands as one of the inevitable repercussions of the “tariff war.”
For Trump’s forces, oil prices constitute a decisive factor—alongside consumer prices and stock prices—in determining the outcome of the crucial midterm elections. If Saudi Arabia and the rest of OPEC push through drastic cuts, or if sanctions on Russia and Iran keep their oil off the world market, where can Trump turn? His countermeasure, plan B, is Venezuelan oil. The fundamental objective of the ongoing US military pressure on Venezuela is entirely the seizure of its oil resources. Venezuela—comparable to Saudi Arabia as one of the world’s major oil producers and geographically close to the United States—could serve as a key instrument for lowering US oil prices. Yet the forces of anti-imperialist revolution in Latin America’s Venezuela differ fundamentally from those in West Asia’s Syria. Should the Trump administration ignore this fact and recklessly launch a full-scale war, it will suffer grave consequences.
Russia, Iran, and Venezuela stand firmly in the anti-imperialist camp, and even Saudi Arabia is edging closer to BRICS. Meanwhile, Azerbaijan’s oil is effectively blocked from reaching Europe by the geopolitical chokepoints of Georgia and Armenia. In response, imperialism has turned its gaze to the eastern Mediterranean, where vast oil reserves have been confirmed—most notably off the coast of Gaza. It is no coincidence that Israel, functioning as the imperialist war machine, has unleashed indiscriminate bombardments on Gaza and engaged in the mass killing of Palestinians. The strategic objective of both imperialism and Zionism is to occupy the Levant, from the Tigris and Euphrates rivers to the Nile, in order to construct a “Greater Israel.” This project is relentlessly being pursued as a fundamental strategic design for establishing hegemony over West Asia, a region characterized by strong currents of Islamism and Arab nationalism.
For Trump, “tariffs”—the so-called “most beautiful word in the world”—do carry certain military and diplomatic dimensions, yet their essential function lies in curbing the astronomical fiscal deficit generated by chronic trade imbalances. The problem, however, is that the federal deficit has been increasing by nearly two trillion dollars annually, surpassing $37 trillion as of this July, with interest payments having already surpassed the defense budget last year. The United States inevitably issues a massive number of Treasury bills and tries to stave off inflationary pressures even mobilizing so-called “stealth quantitative easing (QE),” but it cannot dismantle the ticking time bomb of the dollar, now on the verge of explosion. Linking stablecoins with Treasury purchases may offer nothing more than a short-lived effect, but, as ever, such tricks inevitably backfire with even more disastrous consequences. The only solution is to rectify the pathological structure by which roughly one trillion dollars in annual interest is funneled to the Federal Reserve. It is thus a reasonable prediction that, while the first shockwave of Trump’s domino strategy came in the form of “tariff bombs,” the final shock may well take the form of the nationalization of the Federal Reserve. In the United States, the Federal Reserve Board (FRB) serves as the Fed’s highest decision-making body, functioning in a role similar to that of the European Central Bank (ECB), but it is privatized.
Unless Trump resolves the issue of Federal Reserve nationalization, he cannot escape the dilemmas in the economic sphere. Whether or not Trump is aware of it, this is a fundamental problem that exists objectively and structurally. The solution is not rocket science—it is as straightforward as basic arithmetic. The real issue lies not in recognition but in execution. Concealing this reality is no longer possible; the deeper reason why the consequences of deficit-driven trade, which once afforded material affluence to the American people, cannot be easily resolved lies in the wrongful structure whereby every newly issued dollar entails additional interest payments to the FRB, which is owned by Zionist finance capital. Will Trump be able to make such a decision?
2. In the Military Sphere: Countering the March to World War 3
Trump’s “America First” and “Make America Great Again (MAGA)” policies have revived the United States’ traditional isolationism in foreign policy and protectionism in trade. Consequently, they have intensified the internal contradictions of the imperialist camp and become an unfavorable variable for the imperialist warmongers within the emerging conjuncture of World War 3. Under conditions in which NATO’s military and intelligence systems remain structurally centered on the USA, the intensification of conflict between Washington and Europe has posed critical obstacles to the imperialist warmongers seeking to complete the “Pacificization of NATO” and thereby launch a full-scale war in East Asia and the Western Pacific. Trump’s emphasis on economic and national interests has clashed directly with those of Europe, thereby exacerbating disarray within the imperialist camp. In particular, the Indo-Pacific Strategy, designed to isolate and weaken Russia and China, now faces critical difficulties.
During the “Cold War,” the United States never possessed the military capability to secure victory in two concurrent theaters of war. On the contrary, even in its wars of aggression against relatively small national liberation states—such as the Korean War (1950–53) and the Vietnam War (1964–73)—it was thoroughly defeated. How then can US imperialism, under today’s “New Cold War,” expect to prevail against anti-imperialist states that have grown incomparably stronger? In other words, the imperialist camp including US imperialism possesses neither the strength nor the strategy to secure victory in simultaneous theaters of wars: against Russia in Ukraine, against China over Taiwan, and against the DPRK over the ‘ROK.’ This limitation is evidenced by the ongoing failure of NATO forces in the war in Ukraine—despite their direct control and full-scale support of the Ukrainian military. Moreover, as demonstrated in June, neither the US nor Israel has been able to initiate a full-scale war against non-nuclear Iran. Were it not for the policy of “strategic patience” pursued by Russia and Iran, the trajectory of both the war in Ukraine and the war in West Asia would be entirely different today.
Russia and Iran recognize the inevitability of an eventual war in East Asia and, until that juncture, have deliberately pursued a policy of strategic patience to avoid premature escalation into full-scale war. Put differently, Russia and the “Axis of Resistance” including Iran hold with scientific conviction that US imperialism and the broader imperialist camp are structurally incapable of securing victory in simultaneous multi-front engagements—across the four theaters of Ukraine in Northwest Asia (Eastern Europe), Iran and others in Southwest Asia, and Taiwan and the ‘ROK’ in East Asia—and are therefore awaiting the war in East Asia. Trump has consistently maintained a non-warmongering position because he recognizes well that a confrontation with the anti-imperialist camp would entail the self-destructive and ruinous consequences.
Trump’s engagement in dialogue with Russia through the summit in Alaska, as well as with Iran through the nuclear negotiations, is by no means accidental. Likewise, his mediation in the localized conflicts between India and Pakistan, and between Thailand and Cambodia, reflects the same underlying approach. Trump’s remarks acknowledging the DPRK as a nuclear power, his pursuit of a reduction of US forces stationed in the ‘ROK’, his opposition to the visit of Lai Ching-te to the USA, and his rejection of transferring operational control to the US forces in Japan all fall within the same framework. Had Trump not been elected in November last year, it is not difficult to imagine that, between last autumn and this spring, a localized war against the DPRK and even a civil war within the ‘ROK’ could have erupted. If Trump, as a non-warmonger force, had not assumed office, mounting evidence from the special prosecution’s investigations indicates that the military leadership of the ‘ROK’ would likely have initiated a decisive provocation of war against the DPRK, or deployed HID (Headquarters Intelligence Detachment) units in assassination attempts and fabricated acts of terror. Of course, the principal factor in restraining the war on the ‘ROK’ rests in the DPRK’s deterrent capability and its policy of “strategic patience,” coupled with the heroic mobilization of the ‘ROK’ people. These subjective forces constituted the decisive element in preventing war—a fact that is both empirically undeniable and theoretically consistent.
The imperialist warmongering forces have neither the will nor the capacity to alter the course toward World War 3. For monopoly capital, the drive toward the World War 3 is the only option to implement the “New Cold War” strategy, designed to evade the deepest political and economic crisis in the history of imperialism, a crisis born of insatiable monopolistic greed. Without this path, collapse by simply sitting still becomes inevitable. For the imperialist warmongers, World War 3 is a matter of survival: avoid it and they are finished; launch it and there is at least a slim chance of survival. Their rationale is that, rather than forfeiting everything, it is preferable to secure at least partial gains through war. Their logic is typical—reconstitute a “New Cold War” framework, hold on as in the old “Cold War,” and try to induce internal disintegration in the opposing camp. Yet, as always, such expedients rebound with even greater problems. World War 3 will deal the imperialist forces a decisive blow and inflict fatal consequences.
It is therefore unavoidable that non-warmongering forces have emerged within the imperialist camp, drawing on popular anti-war sentiment to confront the warmongers. This phenomenon is corroborated not solely by the example of Trump in the USA, but also by the emergence of Europe’s so-called “new right forces,” exemplified by leaders such as Giorgia Meloni and Marine Le Pen. It must be noted, however, that in contrast to Trump’s Republican Party, Europe’s “new right forces” are historically rooted in connections with fascism—a fundamental distinction. This constitutes the underlying reason why any united-front relationship cannot be established merely on the grounds of policy convergence. Given the existence of a common enemy, a relationship of tactical coordination—limited to aligning blows against this enemy without recourse to formal meetings, agreements, or joint declarations—can be both justified and necessary insofar as it advances the fragmentation of the imperialist camp and prevents the warmongering forces from reaping unintended advantages. Conceptually, conflating tactical coordination with the establishment of a tactical united front constitutes a right-opportunist deviation, whereas denying the validity of tactical coordination altogether reflects the error of left-sectarianism.
While multiple contradictions persist within the imperialist camp, at the current conjuncture—on the verge of a full-scale escalation of World War 3—the anti-imperialist camp must devote particular attention to the contradictions between the warmongering and non-warmongering forces. The emergence of non-warmongering factions within an imperialist camp—whose essential attribute is aggression and war—represents a significant contradiction. In the case of the USA, this takes the form of Trump, a non-warmongering actor, being caught between warmongering forces and anti-war forces. Although he presently maintains a non-warmongering position, the accelerating momentum toward World War 3 will inevitably compel him to choose a definitive side. Trump’s failure to uphold his promises on the release of Epstein list is telling: the same kind of embattled stance is bound to resurface in other areas.
3. In the Political Sphere: Between Anti-Deep Sate and Anti-Zionism
While achieving economic and diplomatic results such as the passage of the OBBB Act, the launching of the “tariff war,” and mediation in regional conflicts, the Trump faction has at the same time been systematically and step-by-step waging a political struggle against the deep state. It is widely known that the Trump faction has been carrying out a consistent political struggle under the banner of anti-deep state. Trump began his first term by proclaiming the “eradication of the deep state (Drain the Swamp in Washington D.C.)” and in his second term, he is pursuing this historic task in a more sophisticated way, based on the experiences and lessons of his first term. In the early stage, putting forward Elon Musk through the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), Trump purged some of the deep state forces within the government, and appointed anti-deep state figures to key posts in his second administration such as Attorney General, FBI Director, and Director of National Intelligence. Having taken control of both the House and the Senate, with the financial and economic crisis deepening and the full outbreak of World War 3 imminent, he is now waging the anti-deep state struggle at an entirely different speed and scale from that of his first term.
Even without mentioning the film “Civil War,” in which a president who sought a third term met his demise in the White House Oval Office, it is a widely known, open secret that the Trump faction is preparing for a final showdown with the deep state. Hence, it would be foolish to take at face value the White House briefing, which feigns ignorance about its plan to expand the deployment of the National Guard, already in Washington DC, nationwide. It is by no means a coincidence that Trump is repeatedly taking extraordinary measures to strengthen his military authority. The deployment of B-2 bombers, along with nuclear aircraft carriers, to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities in West Asia and the use of F-35s, together with destroyers, to pressure Venezuela in the Caribbean carry the secondary effect of bolstering Trump’s control over the military. Ultimately, when political struggles reach extreme, it is the force that holds arms and controls the people’s will that prevails.
The problem is that the core of the deep state is Zionist capital, yet Trump’s stance is caught in the logical contradiction of being anti-deep state while at the same time non-Zionist. As evidenced by his Jewish son-in-law and his daughter’s conversion to Judaism, Trump is pro-Jewish, but on matters related to Zionism, he adopts a non-Zionist stance. Trump consistently pledged a pro-Jewish stance and has in practice taken the lead in implementing it. The relationship between the Trump faction and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), a prominent Jewish lobbying group in the US, is very solid. Trump even suppressed anti-Zionist protests by Columbia University students by labeling them as anti-Semitic, which makes him appear pro-Zionist. This is because he has a close relationship with staunch Zionist Benjamin Netanyahu and he seems to support this Israeli Zionist. However, if that were the case, he could not at the same time maintain such a thorough and forceful opposition to the deep state, which is centered on Zionist capital. Therefore, in the sense that he is neither anti-Zionist nor pro-Zionist, it is appropriate to describe his stance as non-Zionist
This is similar to taking a non-warmongering stance between the warmongering forces within imperialism and the anti-war forces of civil society. A non-warmongering position in the military sphere corresponds to a non-Zionist stance in the political sphere, and this is no mere coincidence. It is in the same vein that Zionist capital constitutes the core of imperialist forces and stands as the principal culprit in instigating World War 3 for its boundless greed. Accordingly, it is reasonable to conclude that Trump must firmly establish an anti-Zionist stance in order to properly and completely liquidate the deep state. The reason his current ambiguous posture appears tactical lies here: without striking a decisive blow to Zionist capital, the deep state cannot be thoroughly dismantled.
The core content of anti-Zionism is the nationalization of the Federal Reserve. It would mean returning the greatest power held by Zionist capital and one trillion dollars in annual interest to its rightful owners, the American people. As the examples of Lincoln and Kennedy―who were assassinated while pursuing this very task―demonstrate, such a measure has been long regarded as nearly impossible, something akin to a “revolution.” The eyes of the entire world are fixed on whether Trump can accomplish this historic task. For now, Trump is working to shift the balance in the Fed’s decision-making process from the disadvantageous 3-to-4 composition against him to a favorable 4-to-3 majority.
Hitler had initially been pro-Jewish and built his power through populism financed by Jewish capital, but later turned anti-Jewish and seized real control while refusing to be its puppet. Trump, perhaps wary in the early stages of being associated with such an image, went so far as to conceal his German descent. This is why, although he now maintains a non-Zionist stance, it is logically conceivable that he will at some point adopt a clear anti-Zionist stance. However, this core task―the nationalization of the Federal Reserve―is by no means a simple undertaking, and thus he will likely wait for a decisive factor. This decisive factor in the military sphere, capable of producing a decisive change in the economic sphere, lies in the full-scale outbreak of World War 3, namely the opening of war in East Asia.
Anti-Semitism is fascist, but anti-Zionism is anti-fascist. Israeli Zionists are, by their very nature, fascists. To oppose the Zionist capital that manipulates them behind the scenes, and the transnational Zionist capital that worships Zionism and pursues world domination, is therefore to be anti-fascist. The Hitlerite forces, infamous epitome of anti-Semitism, were one of the most notorious fascist cliques in history. The Trump faction is neither anti-Semitic nor anti-Zionist; instead, it takes a non-Zionist stance and at times even a pro-Zionist one. Whether the Trump faction’s true nature is fascist or anti-fascist will be decisively confirmed by its stance toward Zionism and on war.
On Victory Day, September 3, the sight of the leaders of the DPRK, China, and Russia standing together on the podium suggests a logical prospect: just as Russia is carrying out its anti-imperialist war, the DPRK and China may soon follow the same path. Clearly, Russia and Iran are strategically exercising patience and waiting for the right moment based on scientific analysis indicating that the war in East Asia is imminent.
The full-scale outbreak of World War 3 is becoming an ideal opportunity for the Trump faction to clarify its anti-Zionist and anti-war stance. This provides the fundamental explanation for why the leaders of Russia, China, and the DPRK place importance on their relations with Trump, and why Trump, in turn, displays his close ties with them.
Whether the Trump faction will be able to resolve its three major dilemmas―the fatal contradictions in the economic, military and political sphere―is being keenly observed by the entire world.
