The announcement by United States Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent that the US administration would impose a 15 percent global tariff that would likely take effect “sometime this week” landed in an environment that was already combustible.

Formally, the move is an attempt at ensuring continuity after the US Supreme Court ruled by 6-3 on Feb 20 that the president lacked authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose sweeping duties. The US administration then pivoted to Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, which allows tariffs for up to 150 days without congressional approval. The increase from 10 to 15 percent is modest in arithmetic terms. But politics is rarely a simple calculation.

On the same day of Bessent’s announcement, a US trade court judge ordered the US administration to begin paying potentially billions of dollars in refunds to importers who paid tariffs that the Supreme Court said last month were collected illegally. That makes Bessent’s warning sound like another bravado attempt of the US administration to defend its tariff policy.

The imminent tariff hike threat also coincides with escalating US-Israeli strikes on Iran and rising fears of a broader regional war. Oil markets have already priced in a geopolitical risk premium. Any disruption to the Strait of Hormuz, through which roughly one-fifth of global petroleum supply passes, would send ripples across supply chains and financial markets. Japan, heavily reliant on Gulf energy imports, has already started to prepare contingency plans for a worst-case closure. In such conditions, even a five-percentage-point tariff hike can carry outsized signaling power.

Some Western politicians facing domestic strain are known to externalize conflict to consolidate support. The US leader’s recent State of the Union address underscored a deeply divided Congress, while domestic controversies — including the simmering Jeffrey Epstein scandal — have eroded public trust in the country’s political elite still further. Announcing a tariff increase amid escalations in the Middle East reframes the narrative: from constitutional constraint at home to economic assertiveness abroad, even if it comes at a cost.

After all tariffs raise input costs for producers and prices for consumers. Evidence from the 2018-19 tariff cycle indicates that more than 90 percent of the costs of US tariffs on Chinese goods were borne by US importers and consumers. With Brent Crude already volatile, layering a 15 percent duty on energy-driven inflation heightens stagflation risks. Markets, and voters, have long memories.

Several European countries, including France and Spain, have rightly described the US-Israeli strikes on Iran, unauthorized by the United Nations, as violating international law. The US’ latest tariff rattle may be intended as a transactional push for alignment. But allies facing domestic resistance to military escalation and acute energy vulnerability may resist economic pressure rather than yield to it, as some observers say.

More consequential is the Middle East gamble itself. Operations targeting Iran’s leadership risk creating what strategists call a commitment trap customized by Tel Aviv for Washington. Even if the two allies aim at a “regime change” in Tehran, they are not sure themselves to what extent and how long it will take to accomplish this illegal objective. Afghanistan offers a cautionary precedent that although the US has watch, local people have time.

The attacks on Iran have naturally prompted retaliation. Regional actors such as Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis can hardly remain passive.

Should US casualties mount, the domestic calculus will also shift gradually, particularly with midterm elections approaching. Trade policy, already constrained by judicial scrutiny and inflation concerns, would face further pressure. A government confident in its ability to “multitask” across theaters and win “endlessly” on all fronts may find that bundling trade, security and domestic politics amplifies risk rather than contains it.

Beijing opposes unilateral arbitrary tariff measures. It stands ready for candid consultations in the sixth round of bilateral economic and trade talks, while remaining resolutely determined to safeguard China’s legitimate development interests.

Layering tariff brinkmanship onto regional conflict and energy shocks risks making a self-inflicted dilemma for the US — one in which economic statecraft becomes hostage to geopolitical overreach.