15/04/2026

WEDNESDAY | APR 15, 2026

11

Trump’s victory: At what cost? “ TOTAL and complete victory. 100%. No question about it.” – President Donald Trump told AFP following the ceasefire announcement. for a year (about US$12.4 billion), trained 100,000 new nurses or provided school lunches for 1.8 million children for a year.

The war has been deeply unpopular for Trump, creating a major political liability for the administration. – REUTERSPIC

Economic fallout The economic impact has been widespread, driving up costs for American consumers and creating global instability. 0 Massive oil price shock: oil prices have surged dramatically, with Brent crude jumping 50% from below US$80 to above US$119 per barrel. US crude oil has remained about 10% higher than before the conflict and nearly 30% higher since the start of the year. 0 Soaring inflation: the consumer price index had jumped to 3.3% in March, a sharp increase from 2.4% the previous month and the largest monthly increase since June 2022. This has been driven by a 21.2% monthly surge in gasoline prices, the largest since records began in 1967. 0 Economic pain for American shipping and transport costs, leading to higher prices for a wide range of goods. 0 Strain on key industries: the war is also causing shortages of natural gas and fertiliser, with fertiliser and natural gas prices surging significantly. This is directly threatening US agricultural production and driving up food prices. 0 Strained federal finances: the war is being funded through debt, further straining the federal deficit, which already stood at 6% of GDP at the time of the war’s onset, nearly double the 3.3% deficit in 2003. 0 Broader economic risks: the Federal Reserve is now facing a difficult choice of raising interest rates to combat inflation at the risk of increasing unemployment. Domestic political fallout The war has been deeply unpopular for Trump, creating a major political liability for the administration. 0 Overwhelming public opposition: a significant majority of Americans oppose the war, with polls showing R T A G H E E households: if oil prices soar to US$110 per barrel and remain at that level, it will cost each American household about US$1,960 annually. Meanwhile, consumer sentiment has fallen 11% in a single month. Rising fuel costs have increased K E

On April 11, just prior to the beginning of the Islamabad ceasefire talks – to which he had dispatched Vice President J.D. Vance to lead the American negotiating team – Trump declared that “it doesn’t matter” whether a final deal is reached, claiming, “We win regardless of what happens”. The claim of victory rings not only hollow but also betrays how desperate Trump is for a deal with a battered yet resolute and unyielding Iran, which is insisting on a settlement that meets all or most of its demands rather than those laid out by the United States. Despite the failure of a peace agreement to emerge and the strong possibility of renewed war, indications are that Trump will political and strategic fronts. The analysis below synthesises the major costs. Direct financial cost The direct financial cost has been staggering, beginning on day one and escalating rapidly. 0 Immediate expenditure: the Pentagon estimated that the first six days alone cost at least US$11.3 billion (RM44.7 billion), with the initial phase burning through approximately US$1 billion per day. 0 Total estimated cost: overall war costs, including equipment losses and repairs, are estimated at between US$22.3 billion and US$31 billion within the first five weeks. The Pentagon has formally requested an additional US$200 billion from Congress for continued operations. 0 Opportunity cost: Democrats have argued that the US$11.3 billion spent in the first six days alone could have funded the National Cancer Institute for roughly a year and a half (about US$7.4 billion annually), nearly covered the Head Start programme N O T B Y L I M continue looking for a way out that will enable him to claim victory from the quagmire that he has cast the US into. For now, the war with Iran has seen severe negative consequences for the US, imposing a heavy toll across economic, A

that killed 160 schoolgirls in Iran shocked the world and is a lasting stain on US moral authority. The latest military strike by Israel in Lebanon in the midst of the truce negotiations, killing over 300, is demonstrating to the world the disregard and disrespect that America’s greatest ally has for the US in the Middle East. consequences 0 A hollow victory: despite inflicting massive damage, the US, together with Israel, have failed to achieve their core objective of regime change. The Iranian regime has not only remained intact; it is possibly more hardline and determined, and has gained significant leverage by controlling the Strait of Hormuz. 0 New strategic reality: Trump’s ill conceived and disastrous war has fundamentally altered the global strategic landscape. It has solidified Iran’s moral and geopolitical standing in the world and provided it with a new found power to destabilise the global economy should the West attempt to challenge it in the Middle East. It has also severely eroded US credibility as a guarantor of global stability and opened the way to game changing negative consequences for America in global geopolitics. Lim Teck Ghee’s Another Take is aimed at demystifying social orthodoxy. Comments: letters@thesundaily.com Outcome and long-term

54% opposing and only 36% approving. 0 Midterm election risk: the war would be a major political liability in the midterm elections, with forecasts suggesting Republicans could lose control of both chambers of Congress. Democrats are using the war as a political cudgel against Republicans, tying it to domestic issues like cost of living and healthcare. 0 Intense partisan and elite rifts: the war has deepened fissures within the Republican party, igniting an open succession battle for the 2028 nomination. High-profile figures, like Joe Kent – former director of the National Counter-terrorism Centre – have resigned in protest, stating that “Iran posed no imminent threat” and that the war was started due to pressure from Israel. 0 Erosion of trust and oversight: the administration’s failure to consult Congress or articulate a clear strategy has eroded trust and oversight. The war is being widely perceived as a “war of choice” waged on false pretenses, drawing comparisons to the Iraq War. Geopolitical and strategic setbacks The war has severely damaged US global standing, strategic interests and relationships with key allies. 0 Shift in global power: the war has been a strategic gift to US rivals. Russia has benefitted from higher energy prices and a weakened Nato.

China has benefited from a reduced US focus on the Indo-Pacific and now has an enhanced international image. 0 Weakened global standing: the US is universally perceived as an outright aggressor, severely eroding its moral authority and soft power. Any form of a truce would come at the expense of the US’s credibility as the world’s leading power. A prolonged war would further damage US global standing even more severely. 0 Strained alliances: key allies, especially in Europe, have been alienated. The US decision to wage war without consultation has been described as “unacceptable”. European leaders have refused to participate in the war or send their navies to secure the Strait of Hormuz, sending a strong signal of disapproval. 0 Destabilised Middle East: the war has destabilised the Middle East, leaving the region unsettled with strained alliances and uncertain shifts in the balance of power. Gulf Arab states previously acting as American proxies with their bases are now perceiving the US as an unreliable protector and are likely seeking greater security cooperation elsewhere. Humanitarian and moral authority costs The war has come at a terrible human cost, with devastating consequences for civilians. The early horrific strike

E

H

T

K

E

C

LETTERS letters@thesundaily.com

Moving beyond ‘full responsibility’ for student safety THE recent tragedy in Kedah, where two trainee teachers lost their lives during a kayaking programme, is a heartbreaking reminder that outdoor safety is a legal obligation, not a mere suggestion. entails in practice remains unclear. To truly honour the victims, that responsibility must translate into a firm commitment to enforcing the fundamental safety systems already required by law. ensuring robust safety practices are in place for every institution-organised trip. When this role is neglected, the law is clear: accountability rests with leadership. high-severity hazard, and a superficial assessment may overlook the fact that submerged nets can render a life jacket ineffective by trapping a victim underwater.

opportunity to address this through a transparent and uncompromising investigation. By ensuring full compliance with Osha 1994 across all institutions, it can demonstrate that safety laws are applied equally to all. The lesson is clear: safety protocols are the most basic forms of respect we owe our students. Compliance is not a burden; it is the only way to prevent future lessons from being written in grief. Chin Yew Sin Shah Alam

A truly compliant safety system would establish clear weather and water current thresholds, alongside a functional emergency response plan with immediate standby rescue vessels and lifeguards. There is also a public perception that safety enforcement is applied more leniently to government bodies than to the private sector. The Department of Occupational Safety and Health now has an

At the core of this framework is the hazard identification, risk assessment and risk control (HIRARC) process. The ongoing investigation must establish whether a HIRARC was conducted – and whether it was sufficiently rigorous to be effective. For instance, kayaking in areas where fishing nets are frequently deployed significantly alters the risk profile. Entanglement becomes a

Under the Occupational Safety and Health Act (Osha) 1994, every workplace – including government departments and teacher training institutes – is required to appoint a dedicated occupational safety and health coordinator (OSHC). This is a functional, legally recognised role; not a symbolic title. The OSHC is responsible for

As we mourn this loss, we must conduct a rigorous examination of the safety frameworks governing our educational institutions. Safety cannot continue to be treated as an afterthought until tragedy occurs. The Education Ministry has stated it will take “full responsibility” for the incident. While this is a welcome assurance, what that responsibility