I’VE COVERED enough actual wars in my time to know that it’s always the ordinary person that bears brunt of any conflict.

Trade wars are little different in this respect, with consumers invariably the ultimate losers when political leaders and big business get the gloves off over imports and exports.

In the often impenetrable workings of international trade, the equation in such a scenario is actually quite straightforward.

Retailers sell goods from all over the world, so higher tariffs on imports could push up the cost of high street goods. In turn manufacturers raise their prices to deal with the higher cost of imported raw materials. The inevitable result is that we, the consumer, pay more.

I draw attention to this in light of US President Donald Trump’s latest decision to turn his blunderbuss policies on America’s biggest trading partners.

Trump trade war could spell doom for UK steel industry

His decision to levy tariffs of 25 per cent on imports of steel and 10% on aluminium from the EU, Canada and Mexico sets the stage for a bitter round of retaliatory tariffs among some of the world’s largest economies. His announcement too comes just ahead of a meeting of G7 leaders in Canada, making for what will now be less than a cosy get together.

On one level it would appear that Mr Trump’s protectionist message could not be clearer, but perhaps by now we should have learned the lesson that the US President’s bark is often worse that his bite. Rhetoric and reality are two different things when it comes to the way he operates. It also has to do with the fact he is served by advisers who disagree with each other.

If there’s one sure thing about his style of political manoeuvring it’s that he revels in sowing confusion, seeing it as a tactical weapon. No sooner does a policy seem settled than it is thrown up in the air once more.

This way of working has been evident ever since those distant days when Mr Trump wrote his ‘business Bible’ “The Art of the Deal”. His strategy then and now was outlined succinctly a few days ago by BBC business presenter, Jamie Robertson. “Start with a big, indeed an eye-wateringly huge argument that shocks and confuses everyone, and then offer a compromise which is such a relief that no-one realises how much they have lost,” was how the BBC man summed it up.

EU ‘stands ready to hit back’ if Trump imposes unfair trade measures

But what if Mr Trump, having thrown down the gauntlet of tariffs, has no intention this time of negotiating or compromising and we are indeed heading for an all out trade war?

Most observers agree that should the situation escalate, the consequences could be dire. If the US and EU continue to ramp up various tariffs, including on cars, the impact could knock 0.4% from US growth and 0.3% from the EU.

According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), should the tariffs be raised by 10% above proposed levels, then it’s estimated it would reduce global trade by about 6%.

You don’t need to be a Jeffrey Sachs or Joseph Stiglitz to work out what that means for global prosperity.

Seen from Mr Trump’s perspective a lot of this has to do with fulfilling his presidential election campaign promises of putting “America First”. They way his administration sees it tariffs on imports should trigger increased demand for US steel, which will be welcomed in the Midwest “rust belt”, where Mr Trump got a lot of support at the 2016 election.

That said, US steel consumers would have less choice and could be forced to pay more for steel products, which could mean higher prices.

And therein lies the rub of the crisis. All to often it seems Mr Trump’s policies and strategies, whether thought through or not, have this capacity to seriously backfire. In this instance, also in the realm of wider geopolitics.

Already the Trump administration has used tariffs as a means of exerting leverage on “allies” over things like Nato spending and Washingtons’s campaign to pressure and isolate Iran and its nuclear deal.

In March, in one of his seemingly interminable and incendiary Tweets, Mr Trump himself made clear how he sees trade wars working. “When a country is losing billions of dollars on trade with virtually every country it does business with, trade wars are good, and easy to win. Example, when we are down $100 billion with a certain country and they get cute, don’t trade anymore. We win big. It’s easy!”

But the reality is that there is nothing easy about trade wars, least of all coping with the fallout and economic hardship they can bring.

As UK International Trade Secretary Liam Fox said: “It would be a great pity if we ended up in a tit-for-tat trade dispute with our closest allies.”

Pity indeed but when will the UK government realise that on the economic front the US has been anything but our ally since Mr Trump became president.

Come to think of it, Mr Trump’s claims that such tariffs to protect US steel were made on the grounds of “national security” also speak volumes about what he thinks of any military alliances the US has.

Justin Trudeau, Canada’s prime minister, was right in making clear how offensive it was to be labelled a national security threat to the US. If this is what the US thinks of its allies then it makes a mockery of any “special relationship”.

There is another lesson here too for Britain in Mr Trump’s moves. Barry Gardiner UK shadow international trade secretary, hit the nail on the head when he said that Brexit will make the UK “infinitely more vulnerable” to trade wars akin to the current standoff.

Given the choice between the EU’s 500 million strong consumer market with which to bargain and Mr Trump’s “promise” of a “special deal” once out of the EU, I know which one I’d choose.