By Ibrahim Bunu
ibrahimbunu2520@gmail.com
What Susan Kokinda Says Trump, Israel, Scott Bessent and “Operation Economic Outcast” Are Really Fighting.
There are moments in international politics when the event everybody is watching is not necessarily the event that matters most.
Sometimes, the missile is not the whole story.
Sometimes, the battlefield is only the visible part of a much larger struggle involving money, energy, trade, technology, banking, strategic alliances and the architecture of global power.
That is the argument being advanced by American political commentator Susan Kokinda in her recent analysis of President Donald Trump, Iran, Israel, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and the emerging American economic campaign against Tehran.
Her argument is controversial.
Some will consider it brilliant.
Others will consider it ideological.
But it deserves to be understood before it is dismissed.
And that is where her phrase becomes important:
“The war is much bigger than Iran.”
What does that actually mean?
1. FIRST, WHO IS SUSAN KOKINDA?
Susan Kokinda is an American political organiser and commentator associated with Promethean Action, a political organisation that explicitly promotes what it calls the “American System” and opposition to oligarchy.
Her political journey is unusual. She has described moving from involvement in the Robert F. Kennedy political movement in the 1960s into the political orbit associated with economist and political activist Lyndon LaRouche.
Today, she is strongly supportive of Donald Trump and interprets many of Trump’s economic and foreign-policy decisions through the lens of a struggle between two competing economic philosophies:
the American System versus what she calls the British/globalist system.
That distinction is essential to understanding her commentary.
Kokinda is therefore not presenting herself as a neutral journalist.
She is making an argument.
And readers should understand the difference between reporting a fact and interpreting a fact.
Her recent work argues that Trump is attempting something much larger than simply defeating Iran militarily.
2. WHAT DOES “THE WAR IS MUCH BIGGER THAN IRAN” MEAN?
This is probably the most important part of Kokinda’s argument.
At the simplest level, there are two ways of looking at the Iran conflict.
The conventional interpretation says:
America and Israel are fighting Iran because of:
* Iran’s nuclear programme;
* Iranian military power;
* the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps;
* Iranian regional influence;
* attacks and threats against Israel;
* the Strait of Hormuz;
* and the security of global energy supplies.
All of these issues matter.
But Kokinda says they do not explain the entire picture.
Her interpretation is that Iran has become one battlefield in a much larger struggle over who controls the financial and economic architecture of the international system.
In her words, the real battle involves the relationship between:
Iran → oil → sanctions → banking → offshore finance → the dollar → global trade → energy security → industrial power → national sovereignty.
That is why she says the war is bigger than Iran.
3. ENTER SCOTT BESSENT
To understand Kokinda’s argument, readers need to understand Scott Bessent.
Scott Bessent is the 79th Secretary of the United States Treasury.
He was sworn into office on January 28, 2025, after being nominated by President Donald Trump. (U.S. Department of the Treasury)
Before entering government, Bessent spent decades in global investment management.
He founded Key Square Capital Management, a global macro investment firm, and previously served as Chief Investment Officer of Soros Fund Management. The Treasury Department describes him as a specialist in currencies and fixed-income markets with roughly four decades of experience in global finance. (U.S. Department of the Treasury)
Why is that important?
Because the Treasury Secretary does not fight wars with tanks.
He fights them with money.
The Treasury Department can:
* freeze assets;
* impose financial sanctions;
* restrict access to the U.S. financial system;
* target banks;
* target companies;
* restrict international transactions;
* pursue illicit financial networks;
* and pressure foreign companies and governments through the enormous reach of the U.S.-dominated financial system.
Therefore, when Bessent becomes the public face of an economic campaign against Iran, the battlefield changes.
The battlefield becomes the financial system itself.
4. WHAT IS “OPERATION ECONOMIC OUTCAST”?
On August 24, 2026, Bessent announced what the Trump administration called Operation Economic Outcast.
The purpose is to intensify economic pressure on Iran and the foreign entities that continue enabling Iranian trade and finance.
CBS reported that the operation is designed to use economic tools to reopen the Strait of Hormuz and help bring the conflict with Iran to an end. (CBS News)
The Washington Post described the strategy as an attempt to sever Iran’s remaining connections to the global economy. (The Washington Post)
In plain English:
Washington is saying to Iran’s economic partners:
If you continue helping Iran financially, you may eventually have to choose between doing business with Iran and maintaining access to the American financial system.
That is a very powerful weapon.
Because America does not have to destroy every Iranian factory to weaken Iran.
It can attempt to make it increasingly difficult for Iran to:
* sell oil;
* receive payment;
* insure shipments;
* move money;
* access banks;
* obtain technology;
* finance imports;
* and maintain international commercial relationships.
That is economic warfare.
5. WHY IS THIS DIFFERENT FROM DROPPING BOMBS?
A bomb destroys physical infrastructure.
A financial sanction attempts to destroy economic capability.
Imagine a country has oil underground.
The oil exists.
But imagine:
* nobody will insure the tanker;
* banks refuse to process the payment;
* shipping companies fear sanctions;
* foreign companies fear losing access to America;
* technology suppliers withdraw;
* investment disappears;
* international transactions become expensive;
* and the country has difficulty converting its oil into usable revenue.
The oil is still underground.
But its economic value becomes harder to realise.
That is the logic behind financial warfare.
It is also why Bessent’s role is so important.
6. AND THIS IS WHERE KOKINDA MAKES HER BIGGEST CLAIM
Kokinda argues that Bessent’s strategy is not merely about punishing Iran.
She believes it is an attempt to confront a much wider global financial architecture.
In a recent discussion, she pointed to Bessent’s warning about the consequences of suddenly shutting down financial channels connected to Iran.
Her interpretation is that some of these channels run through complex offshore and international financial centres.
She specifically discusses places such as:
* Hong Kong;
* London;
* the Cayman Islands;
* offshore financial structures;
* and shadow or grey-market financial networks.
This is where we must slow down.
The existence of offshore finance is a fact.
The existence of illicit financial networks is a fact.
But Kokinda’s larger claim — that Trump and Bessent are deliberately dismantling a globalist financial system controlled by an organised “globalist” network — is an interpretation, not an established fact.
That distinction matters.
A serious reader should be able to say:
“This part is documented.”
and
“This part is Kokinda’s interpretation.”
Without confusing the two.
7. WHY DID BESSENT TALK ABOUT DESTROYING THE GLOBAL FINANCIAL SYSTEM?
This is one of the most fascinating parts of the argument.
According to reporting on Bessent’s August 24 announcement, a reporter asked why the administration was giving foreign actors time to adjust rather than immediately imposing the harshest sanctions.
Bessent’s response was essentially that Washington had to consider the consequences for the entire financial system.
That makes strategic sense.
America’s financial power is enormous.
But financial power also creates interdependence.
If Washington suddenly attempted to sever every financial connection between Iran and every foreign institution everywhere, the shock would not necessarily remain confined to Iran.
It could affect:
* banks;
* shipping;
* commodity markets;
* energy prices;
* currencies;
* international trade;
* and American allies.
This is why economic warfare can be compared to surgery.
You do not simply swing a hammer.
You identify the artery.
You apply pressure.
And you watch what happens.
8. WHY KOKINDA THINKS TRUMP CHOSE BESSENT
Kokinda makes another interesting argument.
She points to Bessent’s previous experience in global finance and his former role at Soros Fund Management.
Her argument is essentially:
If you want to dismantle or redirect a complex financial system, you need somebody who understands how that system works from the inside.
This is an argument.
It is not proof that Trump hired Bessent specifically to destroy a “globalist financial system.”
But it explains why Kokinda considers Bessent so important.
She sees him not merely as a Treasury Secretary but as a kind of financial strategist.
And that is consistent with the Treasury Department’s own description of Bessent’s background in currencies, fixed-income markets and international finance. (U.S. Department of the Treasury)
9. BUT WHERE DOES ISRAEL FIT INTO ALL THIS?
This is where Kokinda’s interpretation becomes particularly provocative.
A common assumption is:
Trump supports Israel → Israel attacks Iran → Trump follows Israel → therefore America is fighting Iran primarily for Israel.
Kokinda rejects that interpretation.
She argues that this narrative is too simple.
In some of her writings, she has actually highlighted instances where Trump has disagreed with Israeli actions or rejected pressure for a broader regional conflict.
For example, her March commentary argued that Trump’s approach represented a break from what she sees as decades of British and traditional geopolitical policy, including moments when Trump pushed back against Israeli preferences. (Susan’s Substack)
Her argument is therefore not:
“Trump is fighting Iran because Israel told him to.”
It is almost the opposite:
“Trump may be using the Iran crisis to pursue an American strategic agenda that is larger than Israeli interests.”
That is a significant distinction.
10. IS KOKINDA SAYING ISRAEL IS IRRELEVANT?
No.
And this is where readers must avoid another false binary.
Israel remains a major actor in the Middle East.
Iran considers Israel a major adversary.
Israel considers Iran’s nuclear and missile capabilities a major national-security threat.
The United States has a longstanding strategic relationship with Israel.
Therefore, Israel cannot simply be removed from the equation.
But Kokinda’s argument is that Israel should not automatically be assumed to be the author of American strategy.
That distinction deserves serious consideration.
A country can be America’s ally without controlling America’s foreign policy.
11. THE STRAIT OF HORMUZ: THE HIDDEN CENTRE OF THE STORY
Now we arrive at perhaps the most important geographical fact.
The Strait of Hormuz is one of the world’s most strategically important energy chokepoints.
A large amount of global oil trade has historically passed through this narrow waterway.
That means Iran does not need to defeat America militarily to create enormous economic consequences.
It can potentially disrupt energy transportation.
And that means:
Iran → Hormuz → oil → shipping → insurance → prices → inflation → global economy.
Suddenly, a war that began in the Middle East becomes an economic issue for people sitting thousands of kilometres away.
A Nigerian family.
An American driver.
A European manufacturer.
An Asian refinery.
An African government.
Everybody can eventually feel the consequences of a disruption in global energy markets.
This is why the Strait matters so much.
12. WHY BESSENT WANTS HORMUZ TO BECOME “IRRELEVANT”
Kokinda highlighted Bessent’s argument that the strategic importance of Hormuz could decline if alternative energy supplies and transportation routes expand.
Her August 15 analysis connected this to:
* alternative oil routes;
* increased American energy production;
* Venezuelan oil;
* pipeline expansion;
* Iraqi energy routes;
* and nuclear energy.
The basic strategic idea is simple:
If you cannot guarantee the security of one route, create alternatives.
That is how redundancy works.
A smart military commander does not depend on one road.
A smart businessman does not depend on one supplier.
A smart country should not depend on one energy chokepoint.
13. THE PART MANY LIBERALS MAY BE MISSING — AND MANY TRUMP SUPPORTERS MAY ALSO BE MISSING
Here we need to be fair.
The phrase “what liberals are not seeing” should not become an excuse to attack liberals.
There are serious analysts on both sides of American politics.
But Kokinda is raising a question that deserves broader discussion:
What if Trump’s Iran policy is not primarily about winning a traditional war?
What if the administration believes the ultimate weapon is not another missile?
What if it is economic isolation?
And what if the objective is not simply to weaken Tehran but to force a restructuring of the economic relationships that sustain the Iranian regime?
That is a much bigger strategic question.
At the same time, Trump critics raise an equally important question:
Can economic warfare actually produce political surrender without creating a larger global crisis?
That question remains unresolved.
14. THE BIGGEST PROBLEM WITH KOKINDA’S THEORY
This is where we must apply the red-team test.
Kokinda’s argument is intellectually interesting.
But it contains assumptions that cannot simply be treated as proven.
Assumption 1:
That there is a unified “globalist system” directing world affairs.
Evidence: There are powerful financial institutions, multinational corporations, international organisations and interconnected elites.
But: That does not automatically prove they operate as one coordinated command structure.
Assumption 2:
That Trump is deliberately dismantling this system.
There is evidence that Trump has challenged aspects of globalisation, free-trade orthodoxy and traditional alliances.
His administration has clearly embraced tariffs and economic nationalism.
But proving that every policy is part of one master plan to destroy a global financial order requires more evidence.
Assumption 3:
That Bessent is deliberately dismantling the international financial system.
That is too strong.
Bessent himself presents his policy as protecting American economic and national-security interests.
The Treasury Department describes his mission as promoting a strong and stable U.S. economy while protecting the financial system and national security. (U.S. Department of the Treasury)
Therefore, we should distinguish between:
“Bessent is attacking the global financial system”
and
“Bessent is using America’s financial power to force changes in the parts of the international system that Washington believes threaten U.S. interests.”
The second statement is easier to substantiate.
15. THE CHINA PROBLEM
There is another elephant in the room.
China.
Iran does not exist economically in isolation.
China is a major buyer of Iranian oil and has strong economic relationships with Tehran.
That creates a problem for Washington.
America can sanction Iran.
But if China continues purchasing Iranian energy, the sanctions strategy becomes harder.
Recent reporting has therefore focused heavily on whether Washington is willing to impose secondary sanctions on Chinese entities. (Financial Times)
And that is why the Iran conflict is genuinely bigger than Iran.
Because eventually the question becomes:
How far is America willing to go to enforce its financial power against other major powers?
That is no longer simply a Middle Eastern question.
That is a question about the international order.
16. RUSSIA, CHINA, EUROPE AND THE DOLLAR
Now zoom out.
The Iran conflict touches:
America
Israel
Iran
China
Russia
Europe
Gulf states
global oil markets
shipping
banking
the dollar
That is an enormous chessboard.
If Washington uses sanctions aggressively, other countries have an incentive to develop alternatives.
Alternative payment systems.
Alternative currencies.
Alternative energy routes.
Alternative banking arrangements.
Alternative supply chains.
This does not mean the dollar is about to collapse.
That claim would be irresponsible.
But it does mean that sanctions can create incentives for countries to reduce their dependence on the American financial system.
And that is one of the paradoxes of economic power:
The more you weaponise a system, the more your opponents may search for a way around it.
17. THIS IS WHY TRUMP’S “AMERICA FIRST” ECONOMICS MATTERS
Kokinda connects Trump’s foreign policy to his domestic economic policy.
This is one of the strongest parts of her intellectual framework.
She argues that America cannot remain a great military power if it loses its productive capacity.
A country needs:
* factories;
* engineers;
* energy;
* infrastructure;
* technology;
* skilled workers;
* industrial supply chains;
* scientific research;
* and productive investment.
This is the “American System” idea she repeatedly promotes.
And there is a serious economic argument behind it.
A nation that imports everything becomes vulnerable.
A nation that cannot manufacture critical goods becomes strategically dependent.
A nation that cannot produce energy becomes exposed to energy shocks.
A nation that loses industrial capability may eventually lose geopolitical power.
That is why the economic and military stories are connected.
18. SO WHAT DOES TRUMP’S IRAN STRATEGY REALLY REPRESENT?
There are at least three competing interpretations.
INTERPRETATION ONE:
Trump is trying to defeat Iran.
This is the simplest explanation.
The objective is to weaken Iran’s military and nuclear capability and force Tehran to negotiate.
INTERPRETATION TWO:
Trump is trying to reshape the Middle East.
Under this interpretation, Iran is part of a wider attempt to establish a different regional security and economic architecture.
INTERPRETATION THREE:
Trump is challenging the architecture of global power.
This is Kokinda’s interpretation.
Under this theory, Iran is one piece of a much larger confrontation involving:
energy + finance + industrial policy + trade + sovereignty + global institutions + geopolitical alliances.
The evidence does not allow us to declare Kokinda’s entire theory proven.
But it is also too simplistic to say that nothing larger is happening.
19. WHY OPERATION ECONOMIC OUTCAST MAY BE MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE BOMBS
This may ultimately become the central lesson.
Military force can destroy infrastructure.
Economic force can determine whether a country can rebuild it.
A missile can destroy an oil facility.
A financial sanction can determine whether the country can sell the oil, receive payment, insure the tanker and buy replacement equipment.
That is why modern warfare increasingly has several layers:
Layer 1 — Military
Missiles, aircraft, drones and soldiers.
Layer 2 — Intelligence
Satellites, surveillance, cyber operations and intelligence networks.
Layer 3 — Energy
Oil, gas, pipelines, electricity and shipping routes.
Layer 4 — Finance
Banks, sanctions, currency, payments and investment.
Layer 5 — Industrial capacity
Factories, technology, supply chains and skilled labour.
Layer 6 — Diplomacy
Alliances, negotiations and international legitimacy.
The country that controls several of these layers simultaneously possesses enormous strategic power.
20. THE REAL QUESTION IS NOT “WHO IS WINNING?”
The better question is:
WHO IS CHANGING THE RULES OF THE GAME?
That is the question Kokinda wants readers to ask.
Trump’s supporters believe he is challenging an established system.
Trump’s critics believe he is destabilising the international order.
Both sides may contain part of the truth.
The final judgment will not be determined by political speeches.
It will be determined by results.
Does Iran become weaker?
Does Tehran negotiate?
Does the Strait of Hormuz reopen sustainably?
Do energy prices stabilise?
Does the American industrial base expand?
Does the dollar remain dominant?
Does China resist American sanctions?
Does Europe become more strategically independent?
Does Israel become safer?
Does the Middle East become more stable?
Or does the region become more fragmented?
Those are the measurements that matter.
21. THE ISRAEL QUESTION MUST ALSO BE HANDLED CAREFULLY
There is a danger in both directions.
One side says:
“Israel controls America.”
That is an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary evidence.
The other side says:
“Israel has nothing to do with American policy.”
That is equally unrealistic.
Israel is a major American ally.
The United States provides Israel with substantial diplomatic, military and strategic support.
Israel also has its own national interests and security calculations.
Therefore, the mature position is neither blind pro-Israelism nor simplistic anti-Israel conspiracy theory.
The serious question is:
Where do American, Israeli and Iranian interests overlap — and where do they diverge?
That is the question journalists and citizens should ask.
And Kokinda’s argument is that Trump’s interests may increasingly diverge from some traditional Israeli and establishment preferences.
Whether that assessment ultimately proves correct remains to be seen.
22. THE “LIBERAL BLIND SPOT” — AND THE “MAGA BLIND SPOT”
There may be blind spots on both sides.
Some Trump critics may underestimate how seriously the administration views:
* industrial decline;
* financial warfare;
* energy independence;
* strategic supply chains;
* and American economic sovereignty.
But Trump supporters can also make a mistake by assuming that every Trump move is part of a perfectly coordinated master plan.
Politics is rarely that clean.
Governments improvise.
Leaders change their minds.
Bureaucracies disagree.
Markets react unexpectedly.
Allies resist.
Enemies adapt.
Therefore, the best way to understand Trump is not to treat him as either a genius who controls everything or a fool who understands nothing.
He is a political leader operating inside a complicated system.
23. THE SIMPLE STORY FOR A 15-YEAR-OLD
Imagine you have a village.
One road brings food into the village.
One bank controls most of the money.
One company supplies the electricity.
One country supplies the fuel.
One group controls the bridge.
Now imagine your village wants to become independent.
You don’t simply fight the people guarding the bridge.
You build:
* another road;
* another power source;
* another bank;
* another supplier;
* another factory.
Then the old system loses leverage.
That is essentially the strategic logic behind the “bigger than Iran” argument.
Iran is the immediate battlefield.
But the deeper contest is over dependence.
Who depends on whom?
Who controls the money?
Who controls energy?
Who controls technology?
Who controls trade routes?
Who controls information?
Who controls industrial capacity?
That is geopolitics.
24. WHAT KOKINDA MAY BE SEEING THAT OTHERS ARE MISSING
Her strongest insight is not necessarily that there is a secret global conspiracy.
Her strongest insight may be much simpler:
Modern power is increasingly economic.
A country can have the world’s strongest military and still be vulnerable if its industrial base is weak.
A country can have enormous oil reserves and still struggle if it cannot access finance.
A country can have banks and factories but remain vulnerable if it depends on one shipping route.
A country can have political independence but remain economically dependent.
Therefore:
The next generation of wars may be fought as much through balance sheets as battlefields.
That is a profound lesson.
25. THE FINAL QUESTION: WHAT DOES TRUMP WANT?
Nobody outside the Trump administration can honestly claim to know every element of Trump’s strategic thinking.
But the observable policy direction tells us something.
Trump’s administration has increasingly connected:
economic policy + energy policy + tariffs + sanctions + industrial policy + national security.
Operation Economic Outcast fits into that broader pattern.
And Scott Bessent is an unusually important figure because he sits at the intersection of finance, sanctions, international economics and national security.
The Treasury Department itself describes his responsibility as protecting the U.S. financial system and national security while promoting a strong economy. (U.S. Department of the Treasury)
That is why his role should not be underestimated.
CONCLUSION
THE MISSILES ARE ONLY ONE PART OF THE STORY
Perhaps Susan Kokinda’s most important question is not:
“Is Trump right?”
It is:
“What if we are looking at the wrong battlefield?”
What if the missiles are only the visible layer?
What if the deeper contest is over energy?
What if the next layer is finance?
What if the next layer is industrial capacity?
What if the ultimate contest is over who gets to write the rules of the international economic system?
That is what Kokinda means when she says:
“The war is much bigger than Iran.”
It does not necessarily mean that Iran is unimportant.
It means Iran may be the battlefield through which a much larger struggle is being fought.
And that larger struggle concerns something every country — including Nigeria — should understand:
POWER IS NO LONGER MEASURED ONLY BY HOW MANY SOLDIERS YOU HAVE.
Power is also measured by:
Who produces your food.
Who produces your energy.
Who controls your money.
Who controls your technology.
Who controls your supply chains.
Who controls your financial access.
Who controls your strategic infrastructure.
And ultimately:
WHO CAN SAY “NO” WITHOUT COLLAPSING?
That may be the deepest lesson hidden inside the Iran crisis.
For Nigeria, this should not be merely an American story.
It should be a warning.
A country that wants genuine sovereignty must build the economic, industrial, technological, energy and financial capacity to sustain that sovereignty.
Because in the 21st century, economic dependence can become a national-security vulnerability.
And sometimes, the most powerful weapon is not the missile.
It is the ability to decide who gets access to the money, the markets, the energy and the system itself.
A FINAL WORD OF CAUTION
Susan Kokinda’s analysis provides a provocative framework for understanding Trump’s strategy, but readers should distinguish documented events from Kokinda’s interpretation.
Operation Economic Outcast is real.
Scott Bessent is the Treasury Secretary.
The Trump administration is using financial pressure against Iran.
Iran’s relationship with China matters.
The Strait of Hormuz is strategically important.
But claims about a single, coordinated “globalist system” controlling the world are interpretive claims, not established facts.
The responsible citizen must therefore do two things simultaneously:
Think beyond the headlines — but never beyond the evidence.
That is where serious political analysis begins.
— Ibrahim Bunu
ibrahimbunu2520@gmail.com
