Editor's note: Ken Moak, who taught economic theory, public policy and globalization at university level for 33 years, co-authored a book titled "China's Economic Rise and Its Global Impact" in 2015. The article reflects the author's opinions, and not necessarily the views of CGTN.

In the past few days, war with Iran was a real possibility, after U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, other senior officials and lawmakers blamed the Islamic Republic for bombing the Saudi oil refinery.

Even though the Yemen-based Houthi rebels, who have reasons (bombed mercilessly and frequently by Saudi-led air attacks) and capabilities (possessed numerous missiles and drones) to launch such a strike, claimed responsibility, the U.S. still insist the bombing was Iran's doing. Some U.S. lawmakers (i.e. Senator Lindsey Graham) considered the bombing an act war against the U.S., albeit without any credible proof.

Iran denied the U.S.'s allegation and indeed bombing the refinery would harm the Islamic Republic's economic and geopolitical interests. Iran is no match for U.S. military might. Its oil fields and other properties would be destroyed by U.S. missiles and bombs. At the very least, the U.S. could block Iranian oil from reaching markets, choking off the country's major source of revenue. It therefore makes no sense for Iran to bomb the Saudi oil refining facility.

But U.S. lawmakers and senior officials still urged Donald Trump to bomb Iran in retaliation. Indeed, the U.S. president himself threatened Iran, claiming the U.S. "is locked and loaded" and is ready to strike it. However, he changed his mind later, keeping a "wait and see" stance, which suggests that Trump is looking for "solid proof" on whether Iran should take the responsibility.

Trump's caution of not rushing to a war with Iran might be motivated by several reasons. Firstly, he might have learned a lesson from history on prematurely deciding to engage in wars. Falsely accusing Vietnam of firing on a U.S. warship in the Gulf of Tonkin and Iraq of possessing weapons of mass destruction respectively cost Lyndon Johnson a second term and invading Iraq tarnished George W. Bush's legacy. 

Both conflicts, too, cost many American lives and significant amounts of money, resulting in opposition and protests by the American people. Understandably, Trump wanted to avoid the same fate bestowed on Johnson and Bush.

Secondly, Trump might be sincere in saying that he does not want to engage in a war with any nation over unproven accusations. His firing of John Bolton as national security adviser might be an indication of that. The former security adviser was purported to favor or even be pushing for regime change in Iran, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and Venezuela.

Furthermore, Iran is not a country like Iraq or other Middle East countries that the U.S. could bomb and threat without impunity or significant loss of American lives and properties. Iran is a relatively big country with a population of over 81 million, and well-armed with indigenous and foreign weapons to boot. In this regard, Iran could inflict heavy costs to the U.S. if it is attacked.

Moreover, Iran has allies in Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Kuwait. They, along with Yemen and other Gulf States that have "an axe to grind" with Saudi Arabia might be dragged into the fray. Yemen, for example, is a "sworn enemy" of Saudi Arabia because the latter attacked it many times.

Equally important to note is a U.S.-Iran war could cripple the world's energy supply and its economy. According to a USA Today report on May 22, 2019, Saudi Arabia and Iran respectively have the world's second and fourth largest oil reserves. They are also the two largest oil producers in the word. Therefore, any war between the U.S. and Iran would have significant global economic implications, pushing it into a depression perhaps greater than the Great Depression in the 1930s.

Middle East oil is important to the economic well-being of Europe, as it is the closest and cheapest source of energy to Western Europe. Without Middle East oil, the economies of the UK, France and other Western European nations would falter.

A U.S. attack could wreck the world economy and engulf the Middle East and beyond in flame. Trump's personal legacy might also be at risk if he attacks Iran without any solid proof. The U.S. President would therefore not to attack Iran unless there is overwhelming evidence that the Islamic Republic did bomb the Saudi oil refinery.

(If you want to contribute and have specific expertise, please contact us at opinions@cgtn.com.)