“The Wars We Never Get Into”

“The Wars We Never Get Into”

“We will measure our success not only by the battles we win but also by the wars that we end,” said Donald Trump on Inauguration Day 2025 — “and perhaps most importantly, the wars we never get into.”

Yeah, about that…

Israel’s attack on Iran last night has propelled the oil price to nearly $74 a barrel — a level last seen in late January.

➢ In contrast to the usual pattern — “buy the rumor, sell the news” — the reaction here has been to buy both the rumor and the news.

We won’t dwell on the particulars of Israel’s attack; either you’ve seen them already, or if not you can read about them nearly anywhere.

Tel Aviv bills its action as “preemptive,” which begs the question: What looming Iranian attack were the Israelis were trying to “preempt”?

In any event, the last time Iran sustained an attack of this magnitude on its territory was during the Iran-Iraq War — which ended in 1988. If mainstream accounts are to be believed, Iran’s vaunted air defenses turned out to be a bust.

The narrative about U.S. involvement shifted dramatically in only 12 hours.

The original narrative last night was that Israel freelanced this attack — sabotaging U.S. diplomacy in the process. Talks between U.S. and Iranian negotiators were set for this Sunday; Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu went and wrecked all that.

This morning, Trump told The Wall Street Journal, among other outlets, that he was well aware of the Israeli government’s intentions before the attack was ever launched — despite his own public and private warnings to Netanyahu to back off. “Heads-up? It wasn’t a heads-up. It was, we know what’s going on.”

Which is worse? Israel going behind Trump’s back — or Israel and Trump conducting an elaborate ruse to make the Iranians think Washington was sincere about wanting to negotiate?

So now what? The Israelis are promising several more days of airstrikes. “Israel knows it cannot eliminate Iran’s nuclear program alone, or even set it back for more than a few months,” tweets the independent journalist Max Blumenthal — “so it aims to ignite a regional war that draws the U.S. into direct conflict.”

Adds Trita Parsi of the nonpartisan Quincy Institute: “In his speech during the attack on Iran, Netanyahu thanked Trump. He is doing his utmost to convince Tehran that the U.S. was in on the attack — hoping Iran retaliates against the U.S., so that Israel can get the U.S.-Iran war it has been pushing for since the early 2000s.”

Reminder: For all of Trump’s alleged antipathy toward U.S. military involvement in the Middle East, over 40,000 U.S. troops are stationed there. This map from Axios isn’t 100% up to date, but it’s close enough…

The problem for Trump now is that there’s been no effort to sell the American people on the necessity of putting U.S. troops at risk.

Contrast that with the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 — which was preceded by a relentless propaganda campaign lasting over six months.

It comes back to Trump’s inaugural statement cited up top — and his messaging throughout the 2024 campaign, railing against forever wars in the region.

Escalation against Iran “would be seen as an unforgivable betrayal by millions of American voters,” tweeted The Federalist’s editor-in-chief Mollie Hemingway only yesterday.

“It would cost him real polling support that would be permanent.”

And not just among the independent voters who put him over the top in the seven swing states on Election Day last year. Trump’s own base is deeply split — largely on generational lines.

“Boomercons” with cable subscriptions who watch Sean Hannity and Mark Levin? They’re all on board for war. But younger generations who stream videos of Xers like Tucker Carlson, and millennials like Candace Owens and Cassandra MacDonald? They want nothing to do with it.

(Yes, I’m generalizing but you get the point. There’s polling data to back this up.)

Here’s the scary thing: If large swaths of the American people and even Trump’s own supporters aren’t sold… then the risk is extreme that we’ll soon see some kind of bogus Gulf of Tonkin or “Remember the Maine” incident involving a U.S. warship or U.S. base. Works every time…

Let’s hope and pray cooler heads will prevail. But as the saying goes, hope is not a plan.

We said it in this space only 10 days ago after the Ukrainian drone attack deep inside Russia: However many hedges against geopolitical risk you hold in your portfolio, it’s probably not enough.

We’re talking oil, gold, silver, copper, uranium — tangible wealth and the companies that produce it. Personally, I still need to beef up my silver holdings via the Sprott Physical Silver Trust (PSLV) — I’ll continue my dollar-cost averaging today, even with silver prices hovering at a 12-year high.

The Markets Today (And Walmart’s Bad Week)

In contrast with the commodity complex, stocks and bonds aren’t taking the news from the Middle East well.

Among the major indexes, the S&P 500 is holding up best — down about two-thirds of a percent and clinging to the 6,000 level by closely cropped fingernails. The Nasdaq’s losses are steeper, the Dow’s steeper still. Volatility as measured by the VIX has spiked to 19.61, the highest since before Memorial Day.

Bonds are likewise selling off, pushing yields higher. The yield on a 10-year Treasury note is over 4.41%, up sharply from yesterday’s close under 4.36%. As was the case in April, Treasuries are not fulfilling their usual safe-haven role amid a crisis atmosphere.

Oil we covered earlier. Gold has rallied sharply — up 1.25% or $43 to $3,426. Bitcoin is also staging a solid rally after a severe smackdown yesterday; checking our screens it’s back to $105,569.

It’s been a lousy week for Walmart — down 2.6% Wednesday and Thursday amid a nascent boycott campaign.

It began with a full-page ad in The New York Times for the nationwide “No Kings” protests against Donald Trump set for tomorrow. Paying for the ad was a billionaire scioness of the Walton family, Christy Walton.

“Boycott Walmart!” tweeted the MAGA-adjacent political operator Roger Stone.

Walmart, for its part, says it was blindsided. “The advertisements from Christy Walton are in no way connected to or endorsed by Walmart,” says a company spokeswoman.

The former Christy Tallant married into the Walton fortune in 1978. Her husband, John, was one of founder Sam Walton’s sons; he died in a small plane crash in 2005. Christy Walton has no role in running the company or even any of the family trusts. Now 76, she lives in the well-heeled center-left enclave of Jackson Hole, Wyoming (because of course).

Hard telling to what extent Roger Stone’s clarion call is catching on; after the beat-down the last two days, WMT shares are flat today.

But Walmart execs can’t be happy, thinking they’d put conservative protests behind them last year. As we chronicled at the time, the company backed away from some of its more “woke” endeavors under pressure from activists like Robby Starbuck and Christopher Rufo.

“This Is Amnesty”

Even before Israel’s attack on Iran, this stunning news yesterday got lost in the shuffle of other events…

Yesterday morning, the president posted on social media that “Our great Farmers and people in the Hotel and Leisure business have been stating that our very aggressive policy on immigration is taking very good, long time workers away from them, with those jobs being almost impossible to replace… Changes are coming!”

By afternoon, he was telling reporters an executive order is in the works. “They’re not citizens, but they’ve turned out to be great… We can’t take [all of the employers’] people and send them back.”

“This is amnesty,” tweets The Federalist’s John Daniel Davidson.

As with the Israeli airstrikes on Iran, pockets of MAGA Nation are beside themselves: “What Trump is describing here is amnesty for illegal immigrants,” Davidson goes on. “He’s also making a declaration that businesses that openly flout US immigration law (for decades!) will face no consequences.”

Another effect is pointed out by talk show host Mike Church: “You also will not have local and regional farmers & restaurateurs able to be competitive with multinationals until EVERYONE is hiring from the same, legal pool!”

Gee, what was it your editor was saying at the end of Wednesday’s edition? When I pointed out that meatpackers and big hotel chains weren’t getting raided by ICE?

Oh yeah: “See how it works? The Fortune 500 skates. Meanwhile, ICE descends on a small business in LA’s Fashion District, along with a Home Depot parking lot where migrants look for day jobs — and suddenly all hell breaks loose. Trump gets his showdown with teh libruls… large employers of illegal migrants carry on as usual… and Palantir makes bank while law-abiding citizens will soon be subject to new horrors of surveillance.”

Gold or Bitcoin: Why Not Both?

Time is short, but we want to expend two of our bullets on the mailbag as the week draws to a close…

On the subject of gold vs. Bitcoin addressed here Wednesday, a reader writes: “Why consider them as mutually exclusive?

“I’ve subscribed to several independent investor newsletters for about a decade now. So I’m no expert investor by a long shot.

“But I thought it was good to have some diversity in your investments. Is one better than another as far as gold and cryptos go as a non-dollar asset? I think each has its benefit. I have portions of precious metals (not just gold) and some coins in the crypto space.

“Yes, including Bitcoin. I bought some initially in the 2017 era.

“I have made more money in just Bitcoin that far outweighs any stock I have ever owned (unrealized gains or not). This includes using financial advisers and my own independent investing. I don’t think I’m biased. I’m trying to be prudent.”

“Best wishes for a great gathering in Nashville in October,” a reader writes from Nashville ahead of the 2025 Paradigm Shift Summit. “Enjoy your stay.

“Been here 61 years and the city has changed just a bit. The weather should be getting right. Business pulls me away on that day, but enjoy the stay and keep the content coming and the presses running.”

What’s in a Name?

“Dave, I think those doofi at McKinsey goofed on one major point when Warner Bros. and Discovery merged, at their malignant suggestion,” a reader writes after Wednesday’s foray into financial absurdity.

[As an aside, this reader indicates he’s already signed up to join us in Nashville. Click here for your invitation.]

“The obvious error was in choosing the name of the combined company. They got it bass-ackward; it should have been named Discover Warner Bros. The name itself would have been a suggestion of what the company wanted people to do. But since it was named backward, no one was ready to listen. Instead, we were given the lamest possible name for the combined company, and it didn't even tell their stockholders what to do.

“Also, if they did choose Discover Warner Brothers, then their stock symbol would probably have been DWB, which would be close enough to calling them ‘Dweeb.’”

Dave: Hmmm… The problem there is that the legacy company, pre-merger, wasn’t called “Discover.” It was “Discovery,” after its namesake Discovery Channel.

But…

Your musings do bring to mind the classic Saturday Night Live sketches called “World of Discover” — featuring the phenomenal Phil Hartman sending up Peter Graves.

Please, let’s end this hell week on a lighter note…

And try to have a good weekend,

Dave Gonigam
Managing editor, Paradigm Pressroom's 5 Bullets