The war in the Middle East is raging on, and the world stares at it the way one might stare at a pot that refuses to boil. We are waiting helplessly, impatiently, and with a growing sense that someone, somewhere, must eventually come to their senses and turn the stove off. But who will that “someone” be? Trumph? Netanyahu? Ayatollah? The Pakistanis? An enlightened leader who rises above ego and ideology?
No, of course not. According to the most reliable global authority on everything—Donald Trump himself—it must be Donald Trump. After all, he recently declared that there are “no leaders left in Iran,” which raises a rather puzzling question: If there are no leaders left in Iran, then how can Iranians stop the war? And I do not think he would listen to the Pakistanis.
Trump, ever the humanitarian, seems to be suggesting that the entire Iranian leadership has simply evaporated, leaving the region leaderless, wandering in confusion like an abandoned classroom without a teacher. “All gone! We killed them”. And in the middle of this political vacuum, Trump and his dear brother-in-spirit, Benjamin Netanyahu, appear to be the only two people on the planet capable of “doing something.”
Doing what, exactly, remains beautifully unclear. Something. Anything. Maybe everything. Or perhaps nothing at all, depending on what the two are thinking, if they are thinking at all.
One wonders whether they are waiting for the new Ayatollah to emerge from the shadows, the way just so they can promptly eliminate him and declare victory. But then of course, a new Ayatollah will rise. And the next. And the next. How many Ayatollahs is Trump planning to kill before the region achieves the peace that only he believes he can deliver?
It is starting to resemble an endless video game, the Kill, the Rat—Ayatollah Whac-A-Mole—where every time one is removed, another pops up. Except in this case, real people suffer, real communities burn, and the world braces for the next shockwave in oil prices.
But here is where the satire shifts from absurd global politics to something closer to home. Trump, if he indeed intends to win the Nobel Peace Prize—which he insists he deserved long before he did anything resembling peace—should stop the war. Not because the world needs geopolitical stability. Not because civilian lives matter. Not because endless cycles of violence serve no purpose. Not because of Oil.
But because farmers will suffer.
Yes, farmers. Those forgotten souls quietly feeding the world while political leaders argue about who gets the biggest chair at the global table. Everyone talks about oil whenever the Middle East trembles. But very few remember what farmers know all too well: oil is only half the story. The other half is fertilizers.
Fertilizer production is deeply tied to global energy markets. Any disruption in the Middle East doesn’t just send petrol prices soaring; it sends the cost of fertilizer skyrocketing too. And when fertilizer becomes expensive, food becomes expensive. Crops fail. Farmers suffer. Families struggle. Eventually, consumers complain—but by then it is too late. The chain reaction has already begun.
Perhaps this is the only argument that might appeal to Trump’s self–declared deal-making brilliance. World peace – Too abstract. Human suffering – Too boring. International stability- Not catchy enough.
But “Save fertilizer, save farmers”? Now that could be a slogan. Imagine the rally banners:
“FERTILIZER FIRST! TRUMP STOPS WARS SO CROPS DON’T DIE!”
It has a certain poetic charm.
After all, if Trump truly wants to hold aloft the Nobel Peace Prize—preferably in both hands, with a golden spotlight shining on his face—he could start by ending a war that threatens not only global stability but global food security.
I will hate to see Trumph Triumph!
Business Bhutan Team
For a Happy Weekend!
