NEW DELHI ,5-4-2026,Fifty years ago, on March 29, 1973, American troops, defeated, evacuated Saigon. The war in Vietnam lasted 11 years and claimed about 2 million civilian lives, more than a million Vietnamese military personnel, and about 60,000 US soldiers. Seven million tons of bombs and 80 million litres of poison were dropped on Vietnam.
Surfacing after so long is a photo of a cigarette lighter American soldiers then carried, and that should serve as a terse warning: “We the unwilling, led by the unqualified to kill the unfortunate, die for the ungrateful.”
These words capture well the essence of that war through the eyes of a soldier. It is the essence of many invasions and occupations – Afghanistan, Iraq, Gaza, and to them, now add Ukraine and Iran.
The ‘unqualified’ continue to use the ‘unfortunate’.
As of early April 2026, the ongoing conflict involving US-Israel strikes on Iran and retaliatory attacks has caused over 3,300 deaths and 30,000+ injuries, with 4.3 million people displaced, primarily in Iran.
One may argue whether World War III began in February 2022, when Russia attacked Ukraine and set Europe on fire. But four years on, this has been compounded many times over and globalised by the ongoing Gulf War, now into its second month, and escalating.
Planned to be short and swift operations, both conflicts have gone awry due to unexpected resistance, and the supporters’ line-up of those ready to sell arms. If Russia’s Putin doesn’t know how to end his Ukraine operation, America’s Trump also cannot secure a deal (read surrender) from an Iran that holds promise of a tough fight-back, even after much of its top leadership has been removed.
It is difficult to explain how Trump, who promised to end the Ukraine conflict, has ended up actively starting the one in West Asia, while all along claiming to bring an end to seven other wars. The last instance of such a claim was made last week, amidst drones and missiles shot across a dozen countries.
Note the irony: besieged by Russia, Ukraine’s Zelenskyyi is hawking his drones and the experts who can launch them, in West Asia.
Each day passing brings nightmares. Death and destruction in a dozen nations, economies of many others facing bankruptcy, and lengthening queues of people for cooking gas cylinders mark today’s world.
The public response is inevitable. The anti-Iraq War protests were among the biggest in the world back in the 2000s. Old timers would remember protests by the Americans, ‘drafted’ into fighting in Vietnam. Now, massive “No Kings” anti-war protests have erupted across the US.
March-end witnessed thousands demonstrating against the Trump administration’s foreign policy and military actions in the Gulf region, and fears of further escalation with Iran. Organisers reported over 3,000 demonstrations in all 50 states. These protests are bound to continue. Another irony: Trump’s MAGA supporters, who do not want to get involved in “other people’s wars”, are joining these protests.
As the New York Times wrote: “Trump Is Setting the World on Fire — The Rest of Us Choke on the Fumes”.
Does Trump care? Evidently, he is more concerned about his first love: money. Share markets across the world, especially in the US, rise and fall, yo-yo-like, every time he makes his claims and threats to other nations. They come a few minutes before the stock markets open. From oil to gold, prices fluctuate and drive investors around the world into a tizzy.
It is no longer a secret. With every such fluctuation, billions are added to the president’s already overflowing coffers and those of his supporters.
The timing of pronouncements-for-profits may be politically okay and economically smart. But there is some morality in business. Trump, basically a businessman in politics heading the world’s most powerful nation, is giving business a bad name. The world has never before been subjected to deal-or-be-destroyed threats.
How can the world tackle a man who wants to acquire anything and everything he fancies? He got Venezuela (and huge quantities of oil) by kidnapping its president and forcing regime change. He has again named Cuba as his ‘next’ target. He now says he is in the Persian Gulf for its oil. He has cosied up to “my favourite field marshal”, Pakistan’s Asim Muneer, after a lucrative business deal that would bring profits to son-in-law Jared Kushner.
One more irony: such transactions are given strategic and security justifications by people around him, and many in the world community lap it up.
Pakistan, which does not formally recognise Israel and is distrusted by Iran, is an interlocutor of sorts. Trump’s “great friend”, PM Modi of India, gets ignored.
In such a scheme of things, allies do not matter. NATO and the EU are cowering. Gulf Arabs who host American military bases are caught in a nutcracker-like vice, on their own. Some want Trump to keep fighting – so that they survive.
Trump has been a unique president. To compare him with just two of his peers, did Eisenhower, a World War II hero, make America a military nation? Or did Reagan, an actor-turned-politician, turn his country into Hollywood? Trump has combined both these roles into his policies and actions that hurt the world.
Until recently, successive US presidents have worked to promote global trade and contributed to international bodies and development and welfare funds, with a focus on poorer nations. They attracted foreign students and workers, albeit that also meant illegal migration and abuse of the opportunities the American system afforded. These presidents also shouldered a global mission to promote universal values.
Critically viewed, their actions from Europe to Central Asia to West Asia, to Africa, South and North Africa, have been plagued by problems rooted in hubris. It troubled the world, especially their ‘victims’. But they co-exist.
Does Trump’s return to the White House after winning a huge victory last year indicate a shift in the way America views its global role? Does the US under Trump want to be the world’s conqueror?
Picture credit social media
Mahendra Ved is a veteran Journalist and an Expert on international affairs.
