America's tensions are now in a new and perilous stage with Washington's War Secretary Pete Hegseth announcing that Iran will never be allowed to develop nuclear arms, but as the war effort against Tehran escalates, so does opposition to it at home.

At the meeting on October 14 in Washington with the Association of the United States Army, Hegseth stressed Washington's determination to stop Iran from developing a nuclear capability. He was often interrupted by anti-war protesters, who charged that the administration was making an expensive war last endlessly without offering a viable path to its end.

The encounter was not just an event; it was a pivotal moment. It showed the increasing gap between military goals of the Pentagon and new domestic concerns about the economic, humanitarian and political effects of the war.

The question now before Washington is whether it has enough military power to wreck Iran's nuclear program. It unquestionably does. More troubling is the question of whether a military assault can end Tehran's nuclear aspirations and also not create a protracted regional conflict that hurts U.S. interests and undermines global energy security.

The nuclear programme is at the heart of this dispute in Iran. The prospect of Tehran's nuclear development becoming a dangerous threat to Washington and Israel and the idea of Tehran using the bomb for peaceful purposes have clashed.

However, uranium enrichment capability, possession of enriched nuclear material and the development of an operational nuclear weapon are three different stages. Military strikes have the potential to cause damage to facilities, to interrupt the activities of the centrifuges, and to cause delays in production. They can't simply destroy the science and the intelligence of people, the distribution of infrastructure, or the political will to rebuild.

This is important because the success or failure of Washington's policy can only be judged by the number of facilities destroyed.

President Donald Trump has thrown a wrench into the strategic equation by threatening additional military action while signaling the potential continued diplomatic talks. He stated on October 8 the USA would not strike Iran again before the mid-term elections in November, while negotiations continue.

However, his remarks at a campaign rally in Alaska have come days later amid other warnings that the military option is still very much on the table.

This seeming paradox might be intentional. Washington may be trying to apply pressure to Tehran without losing any diplomatic room to try to negotiate limits on nuclear stockpiles and maritime activities, and on enrichment.

However, when both sides think that yielding publicly will have negative consequences for their domestic political situation, coercive diplomacy is increasingly difficult.

The latest developments in the Gulf shows how fast nuclear war can explode into the business of commerce and international trade.

US Central Command told 102.5 KSBE radio on October 14 that American forces destroyed an Iranian-affiliated dhow on October 6 in the Gulf of Oman that was monitoring and targeting American naval ships. The crew was separated by the time the ship was destroyed, CENTCOM said.

Iranian authorities have also claimed that American forces have intimidated civilian sailors, a claim disputed by CENTCOM.

In the meanwhile, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps has said that a container vessel with over 2,500 containers collided with a naval mine, ignited and sunk in the Strait of Hormuz. The incident and the suspected sinking must be independently verified.

These incidents demonstrate the risks of a maritime conflict involving the use of commercial shipping as a target for military action, the threat of sea mines, monitoring and competing restrictions on shipping movements.

For centuries, the Strait of Hormuz has been used to transport about one-fifth of the world's consumption of petroleum liquids. Its significance is not just limited to crude oil, but also applies to liquefied natural gas, petrochemicals, and key industrial raw materials.

Without a total closure, increased insurance rates, increased security, longer voyages and potentially unpredictable delivery schedules can cost economies a lot of money.

The consequences for the energy importing economies, especially India are profound. International crude oil prices affect the Indian economy in many ways, including the inflation rate, transportation costs, manufacturing input costs and the current account deficit, as India relies heavily on imports for over 85% of its crude oil needs.

For example, if the price of crude oil on the East Coast is $10 higher for about five million barrels per day of imports, the crude import bill could be $18 billion higher per year, given stable import volumes and no related changes in supply contracts. It is a scenario calculation not a forecast.

Increased energy prices would also impact on aviation, chemicals, fertilisers, logistics and manufacturing. Firms that rely on shipping through the gulf may have to pay for increased shipping costs and delay deliveries, while governments may be under pressure to absorb some of the extra costs for consumers' gasoline.

There's another element: Saudi Arabia's security situation is worsening. The Houthis have proved their ability to exploit regional networks through recent strikes despite the fact that over the years, significant investment has been made in the region's defence. Disruption to Saudi production, refining or export facilities of any length of time would exacerbate the economic impact of the American conflict with Iran.

The battle also has significant ramifications for the U.S. weapons industry.

Project Agincourt, announced at the Washington conference, is part of the Pentagon's push to rapidly field autonomous military systems such as drones and robotics. It's also important to the modern economics of war, where cheap drones can prod defending armies into using much more costly interceptors.

American arms makers would benefit from a sustained period of instability in the region, as they might see a rise in demand for missile defense, precision, surveillance, and naval protection systems. Greater spending on defence also puts pressure on the federal budget and military stocks.

The domestic political ramifications are increasingly being felt. Consumer inflation in the U.S. was 3.7% in September, according to reports, and gas prices and unhappiness over the Iran conflict have added to the difficulties Republicans have as they prepare for the midterm elections.

The threat from Iran to obtain nuclear weapons is a key concern for Israel. But the figure is not so simple for the monarchs of the Gulf. They have concerns about the ability of the Iranian military, they have concerns about energy infrastructure, they have concerns about investment programmes, they have concerns about commercial aviation, and they have concerns about economic diversification for the long term.

The same pragmatic strategy is needed for India's interests. New Delhi has to maintain a number of strategic ties with Washington and Israel, safeguard the nation's energy security, and ensure the wellbeing of Indian citizens in West Asia and the security of trade in the Gulf, as well as its seagoing trade.