We need to secure funding for both. It's a priority.
En octubre de 2023, la secretaria del Tesoro de Estados Unidos, Janet Yellen, declaró ante el mundo que la economía americana tenía la fortaleza suficiente para sostener dos guerras al mismo tiempo, la de Ucrania y la de Israel, sin sacrificar la estabilidad fiscal. Su mensaje era tanto una afirmación económica como una señal política: la voluntad existe, pero el poder para actuar reside en un Congreso sin liderazgo tras la destitución del presidente de la Cámara. Detrás de esa confianza declarada se esconden riesgos que ningún balance contable puede contener: si el conflicto en Medio Oriente se expande, los mercados energéticos podrían reescribir todas las proyecciones.
- Yellen afirmó con firmeza que Estados Unidos puede financiar simultáneamente a Israel y Ucrania sin comprometer su salud económica, en un momento en que el mundo observa con inquietud.
- La destitución de Kevin McCarthy como presidente de la Cámara dejó un vacío político justo cuando el Congreso necesitaba actuar con urgencia para aprobar los fondos.
- Analistas advierten que una escalada entre Israel e Irán podría disparar el petróleo a 150 dólares por barril y elevar la inflación global al 6,7%, muy por encima de las proyecciones del FMI.
- La confianza de Yellen en la capacidad fiscal del país choca con una variable que escapa al control del Tesoro: la decisión de las potencias regionales entre la contención y la guerra abierta.
- La estabilidad de los mercados globales queda suspendida entre la retórica de fortaleza económica y la fragilidad geopolítica de un Medio Oriente al borde del desbordamiento.
A mediados de octubre de 2023, Janet Yellen se sentó frente a las cámaras de Sky News para transmitir un mensaje que la Casa Blanca necesitaba: la economía estadounidense era lo suficientemente sólida como para financiar dos frentes militares al mismo tiempo. La secretaria del Tesoro fue directa: apoyar a Israel y continuar respaldando a Ucrania frente a Rusia no era una elección imposible. No había razón fiscal para elegir entre uno y otro.
Yellen apoyó su argumento en el estado de la economía. La inflación, que había golpeado con fuerza el año anterior, estaba cediendo. Los fundamentos eran sólidos. El doble compromiso no era una carga presupuestaria, sino una expresión del interés nacional. "Necesitamos asegurar financiamiento para Israel y Ucrania", dijo. "Es una prioridad."
Sin embargo, había un obstáculo político de peso. Kevin McCarthy había sido destituido como presidente de la Cámara apenas días antes, dejando un vacío de liderazgo en el momento más inoportuno. Yellen fue clara: sin un nuevo presidente de la Cámara y sin legislación aprobada, su confianza económica no se traduciría en acción. El dinero dependía del Congreso.
Bajo la superficie, los riesgos eran reales. La escalada entre Israel y Palestina planteaba preguntas sobre los mercados energéticos que nadie podía responder con certeza. Si el conflicto derivaba en una confrontación directa entre Israel e Irán, las consecuencias serían globales: el petróleo podría alcanzar los 150 dólares por barril y la inflación mundial podría trepar al 6,7%, superando ampliamente las proyecciones del Fondo Monetario Internacional.
La confianza de Yellen no ignoraba esos peligros, simplemente los dejaba fuera del marco. La economía podía absorber el gasto. Lo que no podía controlar era si las potencias regionales elegirían la contención o la guerra. Ese riesgo vivía en un territorio donde los balances del Tesoro no tienen alcance.
Janet Yellen sat down with Sky News in mid-October 2023 with a message the White House needed to hear: the American economy was strong enough to write checks on two fronts at once. The Treasury Secretary was direct about it. The United States could fund Israel's military needs and continue supporting Ukraine's defense against Russia simultaneously. There was no fiscal reason to choose between them.
The economic backdrop mattered to her argument. Inflation, which had spiked the year before on the back of energy prices and the broader cost-of-living crisis, was coming down. The fundamentals were sound. Yellen framed the dual commitment not as a strain on the budget but as an expression of national interest—something the country could afford to do and should do. "We need to secure funding for both Israel and Ukraine," she said. "It's a priority."
But there was a catch, and it was political. Kevin McCarthy had been ousted as Speaker of the House just days earlier, in early October, leaving a leadership vacuum at a moment when Congress needed to act. Yellen was blunt about the dependency: the House had to fill that void, seat a new speaker, and position itself to pass the legislation that would unlock the money. Without that, her economic confidence meant nothing. "It really depends on the House finding, seating a speaker and putting us in a position where legislation can be approved," she said.
The risks lurking beneath the surface were real, even if Yellen suggested it was premature to fully measure them. The escalation between Israel and Palestine—which had intensified sharply in recent days—raised questions about energy markets and regional stability that no one could yet quantify with precision. If the conflict metastasized into a direct military confrontation between Israel and Iran, the consequences would ripple far beyond the Middle East. Analysts had run the numbers: oil could spike to $150 a barrel in a worst-case scenario. Global inflation, instead of settling at the 5.8 percent the International Monetary Fund was projecting for the coming year, could jump to 6.7 percent.
Yellen's confidence in America's fiscal capacity was not naive about these dangers—it was simply bracketed off from them. The economy could handle the spending. What it could not control was whether regional powers would choose restraint or escalation. That was a different kind of risk entirely, one that lived outside the Treasury's balance sheets.
Citações Notáveis
The United States can absolutely support Israel's military needs and also support Ukraine in its struggle against Russia— Janet Yellen, Treasury Secretary
It really depends on the House finding, seating a speaker and putting us in a position where legislation can be approved— Janet Yellen, Treasury Secretary
A Conversa do Hearth Outra perspectiva sobre a história
When Yellen says the US can "absolutely" afford both commitments, is she making a statement about absolute dollars, or about the economy's capacity to absorb the spending without breaking?
Both, really. She's saying the economy is healthy enough that the spending won't crater growth or derail inflation control. But she's also implying that if Congress does its job, there's no fiscal emergency forcing a choice.
So the real constraint isn't money—it's political will in Congress.
Exactly. She's saying the Treasury can handle it. The House Speaker's chair was empty. That was the actual bottleneck.
She mentions it's "early" to assess the impact of the Middle East escalation on energy markets. What does that caution signal?
That she knows the downside risks are real and large, but they're still unfolding. Oil at $150 a barrel isn't theoretical—it's what happens if things get worse. She's not dismissing it; she's saying we don't know yet if we're heading there.
If inflation does spike to 6.7 percent instead of 5.8, does that undermine her whole argument about affordability?
It would complicate it. Not destroy it—the US could still fund both wars. But it would mean the spending happens against a backdrop of rising prices, which erodes purchasing power and makes the political case harder to make.
Is she betting that the conflict stays contained?
She's not betting. She's saying the economy is strong enough to handle the spending, and separately, hoping the region doesn't blow up. Those are two different things, and she's careful to keep them separate.