When Trump campaigned, he said that he did not start a war in four years of his first term as president of the United States, and that he did not like war. He began his second term as president on January 20, and less than two months later, on March 15, he launched his first war since taking office, with massive air strikes against Yemen. At the same time, he repeatedly declared to the world that he wanted to "take back" control of the Panama Canal, not to mention the use of military means to obtain Greenland.
It is not difficult to see Trump's intention to control the world's maritime transportation channels as a deployment for the whole world and global trade. As we all know, there are four fortresses on the world's seaborne trade routes, the first of which is the Strait of Malacca where the Pacific Ocean enters the Indian Ocean and the Arabian Sea. The strategic location of this fortress has been a battleground since ancient times, and it is especially important for China, which accounts for 60% of its global trade through the strait. The United States, which already has a military base in Singapore, has effectively taken control of the Strait of Malacca. The second stronghold is the Panamanian Port and Canal, where China has 20% of its trade turnover. Trump's big push to "take back" the Panama Canal is to control the shipping lanes between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, and to kill 20% of China's trade at any time. The third is the Mediterranean Sea and the Red Sea fortresses, as long as this route is controlled, the trade volume here can be completely controlled by the United States. This also explains why Trump has launched an airstrike on Yemen at the Red Sea Coast. The fourth fortress is the Arctic Ocean Route. As the planet warms and glaciers melt, the Arctic Ocean shipping lanes are getting busier; China's trade to Europe can be shortened by about 40 percent through this route. When Trump was in his first president term, he had already said that he wanted to buy Greenland, and now he has threatened to take control of Greenland by military means if the purchase nor encouraging Greenland's independence does not work. Mr. Trump did this ostensibly for the island's rare earth resources, but more importantly for control of the Arctic Ocean shipping lanes.
External ports are strategic assets for any country, and commercial operations can play a good role in a healthy global trade ecology. Today, however, the United States is clearly hostile to China, and its president is so ostentatiously seeking control of the world's most important ports and sea routes in order to one day cut off China's overseas trade. Knowing this background, it is not rocket science to judge whether the purchase and sale of Panama port terminals is a simple and pure commercial deal.
Ocean
** The blog article is the sole responsibility of the author and does not represent the position of our company. **
The US-Israel joint attack on Iran has stretched into its 29th day. Trump claims daily it will end soon, but both sides remain locked in a stalemate—unable to win decisively or withdraw cleanly. No path to swift resolution is visible.
While observers focus on battlefield conditions, few have noticed Netanyahu's precarious domestic position. He faces a critical hurdle that could cost him power entirely. Should he stumble, he could lose office in disgrace, and the Iran war could shift dramatically.
Trump, meanwhile, faces his own crisis. Recent signals show Republican electoral prospects darkening and his ratings collapsing. If the conflict drags on, his political position will become catastrophic. He and Netanyahu are truly partners in misfortune.
Netanyahu faces a deep political crisis — if parliament rejects the budget on Tuesday, snap elections will be triggered, and his grip on power could collapse.
Netanyahu pushes forward to project strength these days, hammering Iran relentlessly and ignoring even Trump's calls to stop. Behind the bluster, he is under siege domestically, his grip on power increasingly fragile. The immediate threat is his government's budget vote on Tuesday, March 31st. If it fails, early elections must be held within 90 days—moved up from October.
Current polls show Netanyahu’s coalition losing its parliamentary majority. Defeat means forced removal from office, followed by corruption trials. Imprisonment is the worst-case outcome.
Netanyahu's Precarious Hold on Power
Netanyahu is notoriously cunning. His calculation at the war's outset was straightforward: early parliamentary elections would favor him. The Israeli military had successfully eliminated Iran's Supreme Leader Khamenei and senior officials.
Initial offensives had gone smoothly. If elections were held after March 31, his ruling coalition could ride the wave of military victory to secure a parliamentary majority. His grip on power would solidify, and he'd escape legal accountability.
But the war hasn't unfolded as he envisioned. Despite relentless US-Israel strikes on Iran, they've achieved no decisive results—just endless stalemate.
Israel now faces three bitter realities.
First, Iran strikes back hard, pounding Israeli cities with missiles and drones. Most are intercepted, but some hit their targets, leaving the public living in fear.
Second, the war costs $1.6 billion weekly, leaving nothing for welfare and development.
Third, the military is under immense strain. Soldiers are exhausted. Chief of Staff Zamir has warned bluntly: ten red flags are already raised, troop replenishment is urgent, or the war effort faces collapse.
War-weariness is swelling among Israelis. Anti-war protests have erupted in some areas, and public resentment shows up in polls. According to recent polling by The Times of Israel, if elections were held now, Netanyahu's Likud party would win only 28 seats—six fewer than its current 34. His ruling coalition, including other conservative parties, would secure only 51 of parliament's 120 seats, falling short of a majority.
If that happens, Netanyahu's position as prime minister won't survive.
War's Toll Erodes Israeli Support
If Netanyahu falls from power, he loses not just his grip on the Iran war but faces reckoning for starting it. Corruption cases loom. Prison is possible. So he pivoted: push the budget through Tuesday's parliamentary vote to stave off early elections. His political survival hinges on that single vote.
Trump's domestic picture is equally dire. His Iran campaign stalls while his own backyard burns. In Florida's congressional district where Mar-a-Lago sits, a 40-year-old Democratic newcomer just toppled the Republican candidate Trump backed. This district has always been a MAGA stronghold and Republican vote bank. The political warning is unmistakable.
Trump’s standing at home is slipping — Republicans just lost a House special election, hinting that his once-formidable political pull is fading.
Trump's Crumbling Electoral Advantage
Voter opposition to Trump's Iran war is direct and measurable. According to the latest Pew Research Center poll, 50% of Americans say attacking Iran was wrong, while just 38% support the decision. That public disapproval is eroding Trump's political standing. Reuters and Ipsos surveys show his approval rating has collapsed to 36%—a nine-point drop from the 45% he held when returning to the White House.
Public anger is moving beyond polls into the streets. On Saturday, 9 million Americans protested across multiple states in "No Kings" demonstrations, with anti-war sentiment as a central theme. The scale and intensity echo the anti-Vietnam War movement that convulsed the nation in the early 1970s—a historical parallel that should unsettle Trump's political strategists.
Mass Protests Echo Vietnam War Era
History doesn't just rhyme—it echoes. The massive anti-Vietnam War movement of the early 1970s opposed a senseless conflict and marked President Nixon's pivot from ascendancy to decline. Trump has now launched a similarly questionable Iran conflict, seemingly treading Nixon's path. Whether the political trajectory will mirror that era remains to be seen.
Lai Ting-yiu
