Transcript:Republicans who will be out of power and, in some cases, out of a job will look back on how they let President Donald Trump use his bully pulpit to pursue his own interests while leaving them “holding the bag” with furious voters. That was the lesson delivered by Politico’s Jonathan Martin on MS NOW Tuesday, where he vociferously asserted that GOP lawmakers are headed for a disaster in November. Speaking with “Morning Joe” co-host Jonathan Lemire, Martin said, “It goes to the heart of priorities. What are your priorities? Because, you know, trying to get a legacy is clearly the president's top priority, along with, you know, the physical plant of the White House and the rehab of the Kennedy Center. “So he goes for these big, you know, big moves and places like Venezuela and Iran because he wants to have a big legacy of his own. he wants to be a consequential figure,” he elaborated. “Well, that's for him. That's not for his party . his party is the one holding the bag, now, when gas is going to be five bucks a gallon.”“And it's the same with the retribution campaigns,” he lectured. “That's about his own grievances and vanity. It's not about his party's fate in the midterms. Why is he targeting a sitting senator, [Republican] Bill Cassidy, in Louisiana? That's not for the good of the party, that's for his vengeance. Why is he going after nine Indiana state senators? Not exactly top of the priority list for [Republican House Speaker] Mike Johnson and [Senate Majority Leader] John Thune, the fate of the Indiana state senate because they defied him on redrawing their congressional lines.”“The through-line on all of this is a president more focused on himself, his impulses, than the good of the party,” he accused. “And at some point, the Republicans are going to wake up and realize that ... probably the day after the midterms.” - YouTube youtu. beOur Analysis:The Misplaced Blame and the GOP's ComplicityIn dissecting the narrative presented, it's crucial to navigate the complex web of responsibility, power, and the consequences of political actions. This analysis aims to untangle the threads of blame, accountability, and the true wielders of institutional power in the context of the Republican party's relationship with President Donald Trump.Institutional Power and Decision-MakingWho holds institutional power? In the scenario painted, President Donald Trump is depicted as the primary actor, leveraging the bully pulpit to pursue personal interests. However, this overlooks the broader power structure within the Republican party and the U. S. government. The GOP lawmakers, alongside Trump, hold significant institutional power. This includes the ability to legislate, influence public opinion, and, crucially, to check the powers of the presidency through various constitutional mechanisms.Who made the decisions? The article frames Trump as the sole decision-maker, pursuing policies and actions for personal legacy and vengeance. While it's accurate that the president made these decisions, it's misleading to suggest he did so in a vacuum. GOP lawmakers had numerous opportunities to oppose, modify, or mitigate Trump's actions but often chose complicity or silence, partly out of political expediency or fear of political retribution.Misdirection of ResponsibilityThe framing of the article suggests that GOP lawmakers are mere victims of Trump's ambitions, "holding the bag" for his decisions. This narrative misdirects responsibility away from those with considerable control over the situation. Republican senators and representatives are not powerless entities. they possess significant legislative and political power. Their decision, collective or individual, to support or not oppose Trump's actions implicates them in the outcomes as much as it does Trump.The focus on Trump's pursuit of a "big legacy" and personal grievances, while accurate, does not fully account for the role GOP lawmakers played in enabling or endorsing these priorities. Whether through direct support or passive acquiescence, the Republican party as an institution shared in the decision-making process, either by action or inaction.Conclusion: Rejecting Convenient ScapegoatsThe narrative that GOP lawmakers are merely unfortunate bystanders caught in the wake of Trump's pursuit of personal interests is a convenient scapegoat. It absolves them of their complicity and the institutional power they wielded but often chose not to exercise in opposition to Trump's more controversial or self-serving actions.This is not to absolve Trump of responsibility for his actions. However, a more accurate portrayal recognizes the complex interplay of power, decision-making, and responsibility within the Republican party. GOP lawmakers were not powerless. their frequent support or lack of opposition to Trump's actions contributed to the outcomes now lamented.In essence, the real story is not just about a president pursuing personal vendettas or legacies but about a political party's collective decision to prioritize political survival over principled opposition. The "disaster" facing the GOP, as forecasted, is not merely the result of Trump's actions but of a broader systemic failure to utilize the institutional power they held to check those actions. As such, the misplaced blame on Trump alone serves as a misdirection from the shared responsibility and the systemic errors within the party's ranks.s

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit paulstsmith.substack.com

Transcript:None of President Donald Trump's usual bailouts are coming after he launched a war on Iran, and the situation has quickly spiraled out of his control. The 79-year-old president has long relied on lies, bluster and escalation to stay one step ahead of consequences in his business, political, and personal life, but those tactics are proving woefully ineffective against the global energy market that's been choked off by Iran in response to the military operation he impulsively authorized, wrote political scientist Nicholas Grossman for MS NOW."In response to the U. S.-Israeli attack, Iran played its biggest card, closing the Strait of Hormuz," wrote Grossman, a political science professor at the University of Illinois. "It’s a narrow choke point at the end of the Persian Gulf, and a kink in the waterway leaves it exposed to a lot of Iran’s coastline. About 20 percent of the world’s oil passes through Hormuz, and it isn’t hard for Iran to stop the traffic.""Iran can’t prevent U. S. and Israeli forces from flying over the gulf, and they probably couldn’t keep the U. S. Navy out of it, but to close the strait, they don’t need to," he added. "They only have to make shipping companies afraid to sail, and insurance companies think the risk of insuring the ships is too high. With threats, a few attacks on tankers, and now possibly sea mines, Iran has."That development should have been expected, Grossman wrote, but the president seems caught off guard by the strategic closure that's threatening to tip the global economy into a tailspin, so Trump has fallen back on his habitual tactics to wriggle out of the jam he created for himself."Trump tried saying the war is almost over and the U. S. already won," Grossman wrote. "It made the oil price drop back down for a bit, but as U. S.-Israeli bombardment continued and market disruptions got worse, it rose again.""Trump tried telling ships to traverse the Strait of Hormuz, but most wouldn’t, and a few who did exploded, presumably at Iran’s hand," he added. "He tried releasing oil from America’s strategic reserve, and some other countries did from theirs. But that’s a Band-Aid on a gaping wound, and had little impact."He tried bombing Kharg Island, which Iran uses for oil exports, in the apparent belief that slowing down Iran's shipping would force it to stop blocking other nations' ships in the Persian Gulf, and Grossman saw a parallel in Trump's business career."That recalls one of Trump’s go-to moves in business: the bad faith lawsuit," Grossman wrote. "He’d break a contract, screw someone over, and dare them to sue him. Or would initiate legal action himself. Either way, he bet that he’d have more resources and greater tolerance for a protracted legal fight, and the other party would settle even when the facts were on their side.""That won’t work with Iran," Grossman warned. Trump has incentivized the Iranian regime to use every bit of leverage they have and endure as much punishment as they can take, and U. S. allies aren't willing to bail him out after he alienated them and launched an illegal war without first consulting them."Much of the time when Trump was in the private sector and messed up, his rich dad bailed him out or he’d declare bankruptcy," Grossman wrote. "Instead of holding equity or debt, Trump would have the business pay him a salary and bonuses, so that money was gone when the company went under, and his partners and contractors would take most of the losses.""Trump started something that quickly spiraled and seems out of ideas," he added. "There’s no one to sue, no rules to manipulate, just the hard realities of resource shortages and war. And there’s a good chance Iran can tolerate being bombed more than the U. S. can tolerate a rapidly rising oil price and the economic damage it causes."Our Analysis:The Misguided Blame Game: Unpacking the Real Culprits Behind the Iran CrisisThe recent article by Nicholas Grossman for MS NOW paints a vivid picture of the crisis unfolding in the wake of President Donald Trump's decision to launch a military operation against Iran. Grossman's narrative, while rich in detail, leans heavily on attributing the spiraling consequences solely to Trump's impulsiveness and his historical reliance on questionable tactics in business and politics. However, a closer examination reveals that this framing, though not entirely misplaced, misses the broader institutional and geopolitical dynamics at play. Let's dissect the situation with the precision it demands, identifying where responsibility truly lies and whether the article's framing might be misdirecting blame.Who Holds Institutional Power?At the heart of this crisis is President Trump, the Commander-in-Chief of the United States Armed Forces, who, as Grossman notes, authorized the military operation against Iran. The President, indeed, holds significant institutional power, particularly in matters of national security and military engagement. However, the power to engage militarily is not wielded in a vacuum. It involves consultations and often requires support from various arms of government, including the Defense Department, intelligence agencies, and, ideally, Congress. The article's focus on Trump, while understandable, glosses over the systemic structures that enable such decisions.Decision-Makers and OutcomesTrump's decision to attack Iran, as described, appears impulsive and poorly strategized, especially considering Iran's predictable retaliation by closing the Strait of Hormuz. This decision, and the lack of an effective contingency plan, rightly places Trump in the spotlight. However, it's critical to ask: were there no dissenting voices within his administration or the military? The narrative's lack of depth in exploring these internal dynamics oversimplifies the decision-making process, potentially absolving others who either supported or failed to effectively challenge the president's course of action.Misdirection of Blame?The article's framing suggests that Trump's personal history of navigating legal and business challenges through dubious means directly correlates with his approach to international conflict. While there's merit in analyzing the consistency of an individual's problem-solving tactics, it's a leap to suggest that these personal tendencies alone are responsible for the geopolitical crisis. This perspective risks underestimating the complexity of international relations and overstates the influence of Trump's personal modus operandi on the systemic challenges at hand.Moreover, Grossman's commentary on allies not bailing out Trump after he "alienated them and launched an illegal war" touches on a crucial point. international diplomacy and the consequences of its erosion. Yet, it frames the situation as if the ally support is a personal favor to Trump, rather than a matter of international principles and the collective interests of those nations.ConclusionWhile President Trump's decisions and tactics are undoubtedly central to the unfolding crisis with Iran, Grossman's analysis tends to personalize a complex international event, focusing extensively on Trump's character flaws. This approach, although engaging, risks overshadowing the multifaceted institutional, geopolitical, and systemic dynamics that contribute to such crises. It is crucial for critiques to balance the scrutiny of individual actors with a broader analysis of the structures and decisions that enable them. In doing so, we can avoid the trap of simplification and ensure a more nuanced understanding of international affairs.s

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit paulstsmith.substack.com

Transcript:Former Fox News host Tucker Carlson is alleging that because of his vehement criticism of U. S. President Donald Trump's decision to go to war with Iran, the CIA is "preparing some kind of criminal referral" against him and giving it to the U. S. Department of Justice (DOJ) "on the basis of a supposed crime." Carlson, in the past, was a passionate supporter of the MAGA movement, but like former Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Georgia), he views U. S. strikes against Iran as a betrayal of the "America First" agenda that Trump campaigned on in 2016, 2020 and 2024. Never Trump conservative Rick Wilson and liberal journalist Molly Jong-Fast examined Carlson's allegation on a "Fast Politics" video posted on YouTube on Sunday night, March 15. And they stressed that people on the right are hardly exempt from Trump's retribution campaign against his critics. Jong-Fast told Wilson, a former GOP strategist, "There are so many issues here. There's the possibility that Tucker is acting as a foreign agent. But then, there's the other possibility that they're going after media figures they don't like, which we saw with (former CNN host) Don Lemon."Wilson replied, "Absolutely correct. I think there's a massive overlap between left and right people that Trump is going after . or has directed his people to go after. And I don't think it's happening in equal intensity and sequence for all of them…. They're going to go after people they don't like. You saw (Federal Communications Commission Chairman) Brendan Carr, over the weekend, saying: Oh, well, we're going to go after networks that don't cover the war like we want them to cover it. Well, that ain't how this s--- works, boss. But here we are."The Never Trump conservative, however, was also critical of Carlson in the video, noting that like GOP operative and former 2016 Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort, the former Fox News host has a history of supporting "vile" and "repressive" despots in Eastern Europe. Carlson, in the past, expressed favorable views on Russian President Vladimir Putin. And Wilson noted that like many Trump officials, "Tucker is also a huge fan of" Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán. - YouTube www. youtube. coms

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit paulstsmith.substack.com

Transcript:The word "polarization" was being used to describe the United States' political environment long before Donald Trump launched the MAGA movement with his 2016 campaign. During the 2004 presidential election, quite a few political journalists stressed that liberal and progressive urban Americans and rural Republicans were living in two different worlds. And 12 years before that, during his 1992 presidential campaign, paleoconservative Patrick Buchanan (a major influence on Trump and MAGA) said the U. S. was in the middle of a "culture war." But Never Trump conservative David French, in his March 15 column for the New York Times, argues that the United States' political polarization is entering an even more dangerous phase than before."Does anyone think a healthy nation with a healthy political culture would elect a man like Donald Trump not once, but twice?," French comments. "The eternal return of President Trump is a sign of our national sickness, and a recent Pew Research Center study shows us exactly what that sickness is. We despise each other, and demagogues rise when hatred increases. It's as predictable as night following day."French continues, "In a 25-country survey, which included a cross section of European, Asian, African and American nations, the United States was the only country in which a majority of adults surveyed said that the morality and ethics of their fellow citizens were either bad or somewhat bad. Even countries torn apart by violence and civil strife . countries such as Nigeria and Mexico . had higher views of their fellow citizens."Big chunks of the U. S. population, French warns, don't review their political opponents as the loyal opposition . they see them as flat-out evil."If you're a Republican or a Democrat," French argues, "the best way to imagine the other side's view of you is to simply mirror your own attitude. They despise you with the same intensity that you despise them. They view you with the same sense of threat and alarm that you view them…. American hatred is growing so great that partisans, perversely enough, often view kindness and tolerance from political opponents as a threat…. Civility itself is a questionable value. It's a version of 'respectability politics' when the times call for direct, aggressive action against your evil political opponents. This approach is profoundly dangerous to our republic."s

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit paulstsmith.substack.com

Transcript:President Donald Trump is “at a kind of fork in the road” with his war against Iran, a conservative historian explained on Sunday . and the Republican commander-in-chief seems woefully unprepared for it.“The choice is this: we have now expended a tremendous amount of power to restructure the region,” historian Robert Kagan said on a podcast episode for The Bulwark with conservative commentator William Kristol. “Put simply, that's the goal . restructure the region so that there is no longer an Iranian threat. But there's going to be instability in Iran no matter what happens.”Kagan argued that even a friendly government in Iran will meet with widespread public resistance. This means there will likely be instability, and the responsibility for confronting that will be placed at Trump’s feet.“That instability will also create terrorism, brutality, and the potential closure of the Strait of Hormuz,” Kagan said. “It's not as though the region will suddenly become permanently stable. The United States would still have to play a role . but it will have kicked this hornet's nest. It will have upset one balance. So is it going to sustain the other?”Because of this quandary, Trump must either keep American troops in Iran long-term or withdraw even in the face of likely regional volatility. Kagan argued that the last Republican president to plunge America into an unpopular Middle Eastern war, George W. Bush, did so in Iraq in 2003 . but he at least had a plan.“To be fair to the Bush administration . and people are now drawing analogies between this and the Iraq War of 2003 . there is a significant difference,” Kagan said. “Whatever else is true, Bush felt responsible for leaving behind a sustainable outcome in Iraq. And if you look at Iraq since the 2003 invasion, there have been six parliamentary elections, seven prime ministers, and a change of government. Iraq has been stable. It hasn't gone to war with anyone. It hasn't committed atrocities against its own people.”Unfortunately Trump does not appear to feel the same sense of responsibility toward Iran that Bush felt toward Iraq.“The other day, Lindsey Graham . who is essentially Trump's whisperer on this war, and has openly boasted about his role in pushing Trump toward it . specifically said: ‘I don't believe that if you break it, you own it,’” Kagan said about Graham. “Which means: yes, we can break it and walk away. And I think that is precisely what much of the world expects us to do.”This is not Kagan’s first time speaking out against Trump. In February, Kagan told CNN journalist Christiane Amanpour that he worries Trump will try to overturn the 2026 midterm elections so he will not lose power.“I am worried, as I have said and others have been pointing out, about whether we will even have free and fair elections in 2026, let alone in 2028,” Kagan told Amanpour. “I think Trump has a plan to disrupt those elections, and I don't think he's willing to allow Democrats to take control of one or both houses as could happen in a free election.”Kristol is also an outspoken critic of Trump, such as when he described him as a member of the “Epstein class” in a February editorial for The Bulwark.“Trump is saddened by any embarrassment to the royal family,” Kristol wrote when Trump said he is “saddened” by the disgrace and arrest of UK prince Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor for his alleged Epstein-related crimes. “And there is no evidence the Trump administration has any interest in seeing justice done, or any intention of having the truth come out. We have an executive branch that is on the side of the Epstein class, not the Epstein survivors.”s

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit paulstsmith.substack.com

Transcript:President Donald Trump’s invasion of Iran is historically unpopular, at least when compared to other nascent wars . and his fellow Republicans may soon regret his actions.“No US president in living memory has gone to war with less public support than Donald Trump has for the war in Iran,” wrote associate professor David Smith, a professor of politics and foreign policy at the US Studies Centre and the School of Social and Political Sciences at the University of Sydney, at a recent post for the United States Studies Centre. “Even Barack Obama’s much-maligned Libyan intervention began with 60% of Americans in support in 2011. There is no poll that shows a majority of Americans supporting the Iran war, and multiple polls showing clear majorities against it. And wars usually lose public support as they go on.”Smith cited political scientist Bruce Jentleson, who has argued public support for war in the United States depends on people believing that the goal has a legitimate purpose (such as ending aggression) rather than a more idealistic one (like regime change).“That theory explains why the Bush administration made such an effort to claim Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and was linked to the September 11 terrorist attacks, even though ‘regime change’ was the aim of the Iraq war,” Smith wrote. For these reasons, Smith said that the Iran war is likely to be a political liability for Trump. As early evidence of this, Smith brought up how “Tucker Carlson, the loudest critic of the Iran war on the right, immediately labelled it ‘Israel’s war’” and “Joe Rogan, an influential figure among Trump’s 2024 support base of disillusioned young men, said they felt ‘betrayed’ by the war.”Politically, Smith predicted the worst for Trump.“Trump’s glib dismissals of the price of oil are sounding a lot like his airy reassurances at the beginning of the pandemic,” Smith said. “Few Republicans in Congress have been prepared to stand up to Trump over the war. But as midterm elections approach, many of them will be silently praying he finds an excuse to end it as soon as possible.”Smith is not the only person to anticipate the worst for the Iran war for Trump. Republican strategist Steve Schmidt, who advised President George W. Bush, expressed contempt for Trump’s strategizing for the Iran war.“He wanted the Peace Prize, and when he couldn’t get it, Trump lost his mind,” Schmidt wrote for his Substack on Friday. Quoting Trump’s letter to Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre in which he said he no longer cared about peace because he seemingly could not win the Nobel Peace Prize, Schmidt noted that Trump said he “no longer feel[s] an obligation to think purely of Peace, although it will always be predominant, but can now think about what is good and proper for the United States of America.”Earlier in March Schmidt argued for Substack that Trump’s Iran war is far more ill-planned than other major American wars.“There has been no debate, no plan, and no thought given by Donald, his stooges and politicized generals about the second-and third-order effects of their decisions,” Schmidt exclaimed. “This is escalating.”s

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit paulstsmith.substack.com

Transcript:At a press briefing on Friday, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth complained about a CNN report that the Trump administration had underestimated Iran’s ability to disrupt global oil traffic by closing the Strait of Hormuz. “Patently ridiculous,” Hegseth told reporters, adding . even as the strait’s blockage was proving to be Iran’s most powerful leverage in the war . we “don’t need to worry about it.” He also denied that the U. S. bombed the school where some 175 children were killed. Hegseth added that, as to CNN, “the sooner David Ellison takes over that network, the better.”These remarks are remarkably stupid, on several levels. First, CNN got it absolutely right in reporting that Trump’s national security team had underestimated Iran’s ability to disrupt global oil traffic. CNN cited “multiple sources familiar with the matter.” The New York Times published a similar story, reporting that in the lead-up to the U. S.-Israeli attack, “Trump downplayed the risks to the energy markets.” Even The Wall Street Journal, hardly a New York Times or CNN clone, substantiated the story on Friday, reporting that Trump rejected warnings that Iran would likely retaliate by closing the strait because he believed Iran would capitulate before doing so, and he assumed that even if Iran tried to close it, the U. S. military could handle it. Second, Hegseth’s comment that we “don’t need to worry about” the blockage of the strait is not only false but flippantly insulting to an American public that deserves to know what the Trump regime is planning to do about soaring prices at the gas pump, directly due to that blockage. Third, even if Hegseth believes that David Ellison’s ownership of CNN will silence CNN’s critical coverage of Trump, it’s remarkably stupid of Hegseth to say it out loud. “The sooner David Ellison takes over CNN, the better” is an open admission that Trump backed Ellison’s bid to acquire Warner Bros. Discovery, CNN’s parent, to silence criticism. That deal is still pending, so Hegseth’s admission is likely to fuel even more opposition to it. California’s attorney general has already suggested he’ll go to court to block it. Now other attorneys general, the ACLU, and Democrats in Congress may join the case as co-plaintiffs. Hegseth’s admission also confirms CNN’s worst fears that Ellison will throttle criticism of Trump . a fear that’s already caused several leading lights to exit. As Variety put it, “Anderson, cooped. Jake, tapped. Erin, burnt. Kasie, hunted. Wolf, blitzed.”Ellison has already proven himself an unreliable steward of journalistic independence at CBS News. One departing producer there explained in a farewell memo to colleagues that she could no longer work where stories are “evaluated not just on their journalistic merit, but on whether they conform to a shifting set of ideological expectations . a dynamic that pressures producers and reporters to self-censor or avoid challenging narratives that might trigger backlash or unfavorable headlines.”Finally, Hegseth’s denial that the U. S. is responsible for the deaths of nearly 200 schoolchildren in Iran is belied by mounting evidence that the U. S. did bomb the school. Hegseth’s further insistence that the U. S. “never targets civilians” is refuted by the U. S. military’s killing of at least 157 people on 40 small boats in the Caribbean without evidence they were “narcoterrorists” rather than civilians. And, friends, this was just one news conference. Pete Hegseth’s job is so far over his head that he can’t even see it. He evidently believes it’s to cheerlead and defend Trump with bonkers claims like “We didn't start this war, but under President Trump we’re finishing it” and “America is winning decisively, devastatingly, and without mercy” and “we will show no quarter for our enemies.” (“No quarter” means kill everyone and take no prisoners, which is a war crime.)In the days leading up to the U. S. attack on Iran, Hegseth spent his time criticizing “wokeness” at American universities, feuding with Anthropic over safeguards for AI, and, in the day before the war began, forcing Scouting America to abandon programs aimed at promoting diversity. He dismisses war crimes, pooh-poohs the rules of engagement, and projects unequivocal belligerence at a time when the United States is rapidly losing whatever moral standing it had in the world. Granted, it’s difficult to select one of Trump’s Cabinet members as the stupidest. But Pete Hegseth stands out for sheer boneheaded ignorance. Pray for America and the world. Robert Reich is a professor of public policy at Berkeley and former secretary of labor. His writings can be found at https://robertreich. substack. coms

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit paulstsmith.substack.com

Transcript:President Donald Trump has grown accustomed to doing what he wants and then quickly improvising if things go south, says Axios. But this time, some in his inner circle have what one official called "buyer's remorse" . growing fears that attacking Iran was a mistake. Axios reports that a source close to the administration said some key officials around Trump were reluctant or wanted more time. "He ended up saying, 'I just want to do it,'" the source said. "He grossly overestimated his ability to topple the regime short of sending in ground troops."The Axios source said Trump was "high on his own supply" after last summer's quick strikes in Iran and January's abduction of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro: "He saw multiple decisive quick victories with extraordinary military competence."Some officials close to him had hoped he'd be able to show some quick gains and declare victory, Axios states. Now, it's not apparent how he'd do that convincingly. “The Iran war, now entering Week 3, is the first time Trump’s style has made it impossible for him to easily talk or improvise his way out.” What’s happening now is that Trump risks getting caught in an “escalation trap” as he works to free the oil jam in the Persian Gulf. The escalation trap is “where a stronger force is incentivized to keep attacking to demonstrate dominance amid diminishing returns.” An anonymous Trump administration official laid it out for Axios reporter Marc Caputo: “The Iranians f. . ing around with the Strait [of Hormuz] makes (Trump) more dug in.”Pressure from Israel is also a factor in the escalation trap. Axios contends Trump has a history of being convinced by Benjamin Netanyahu to take his side. For the Iranians' part, survival is the key, and its retaliation proves “it can impose pain, militarily and economically, to scare off future attacks.”Unlike tariffs that are easily yanked, the Iran war’s outcome “is beyond unilateral control and quick fixes. And Iran gets a say,” Axios states. Axios notes that it’s fair to assume the Trump administration expected the conflict to run about 4 to 6 weeks. That timeline would make April 1 (day 33 of the war) “a real gut-check moment.”There is no easy path out for Trump, Axios claims. “The Iranians have made it clear in private and in public that even if Trump decides to end the war, they could continue shooting missiles and rockets until they get guarantees that this is the end of the war, not just a temporary ceasefire.”Trump faces new territory now, Axios says. He has to make a decision on a significant military escalation. He had hoped for some gains that would allow him to declare victory. But that’s not happening.s

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit paulstsmith.substack.com

Transcript:Tax cuts are always at the core of the GOP platform, and Donald Trump has applied them as avidly as any Republican, making the maintenance of his first-term tax reductions for high-income earners a key aspect of his second term, while layering in breaks intended to appeal to low-income earners like his “no tax on tips” promise and bigger refunds. According to New York Times tax policy analyst Andrew Duehren, however, not only will the majority of Americans notice little change in their taxes, but the costs tied to the war in Iran could offset any savings altogether. One of the most consequential results of Trump’s war on Iran has involved the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, arguably the world’s most essential global trade route, through which typically passes roughly 100 ships carrying oil and other goods per day. With shipping passages at a standstill since Trump initiated the war, US gas prices have skyrocketed by as much as 65 cents per gallon – the fastest weekly increase in two decades. That translates into higher costs across the board, which experts say is going to eat into what little stimulus Americans could have expected in the coming months. Michael Pugliese, a senior economist at Wells Fargo, had expected the tax cuts to provide slight economic growth over the next year. Now, he says, all it will serve is to “limit the downside” of the war, saying, “This energy shock is coming just as the refund money really gets flowing.”Morgan Stanley economist Heather Berger agrees, saying, “If the oil shock is large and sustained, then yes, it can more than offset this boost from refunds.”This is bad news for Republicans, who were counting on the tax cuts and theoretical economic stimulus to bolster their floundering support in November’s midterm elections. But not only has Trump’s war in Iran torpedoed such hopes, but they may have been overoptimistic in the first place. According to Berger, economists expected the boost to be “relatively minor” even before the war, saying, “We didn’t have it resulting in this very large jump in spending regardless.”As Duehren writes, the underwhelming impact of the tax cuts plus the increased cost of living mean that “the dominant impression of the economy for many Americans this spring could ultimately come down to gas prices that have risen rapidly, eating into their purchasing power.”s

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit paulstsmith.substack.com

Transcript:Antonio Aguto, a retired soldier who in 2024 served as an army major general, is accused in a recent Military Times report of being inappropriately drunk while serving . and potentially jeopardizing global security in the process. Citing a recent report from the Department of Defense Inspector General’s office, the Times reported that “the two-star head of the command responsible for coordinating support for Ukraine left a tube of classified maps behind on a train in Europe, losing control of the sensitive material for 24 hours.” Aguto was diagnosed with a concussion following the night of intoxication at a Kyiv social event. Although the report described events from the spring and summer of 2024, it was only recently released… yet those events allegedly cover a pattern of behavior that transcends a mere night of friendly socializing. Aguto is accused of contributing to a toxic work environment in his office even before the night of drunkenness, and then on May 13, 2024 consuming two 500 ml bottles of chacha, a Georgian brandy containing 40-50% alcohol. He woke up the next day with bruising on his head and remaining disoriented and incoherent.“As he met staff in the hotel lobby ahead of a morning meeting with then-Secretary of State Anthony Blinken, witnesses reported Aguto acting lethargic and ‘not himself,’ and staff said they suggested he cancel the meeting,” the Times reported. “En route to the U. S. Embassy and running late, Aguto fell again, hitting his jaw on the concrete and tearing his jacket. Aguto showed up to the meeting looking ‘completely disheveled’ and ‘out of it,’ according to the regional security officer. The U. S. ambassador to Ukraine reported worrying that Aguto had been drugged, according to the IG, and others reported him slurring words and acting ‘cognitively diminished.’”It was later determined that Aguto had misplaced a set of maps “classified Secret, hand-carried in a cylindrical tube due to their size. While a witness reported seeing a noncommissioned officer in the travel party carry the map tube onto the train, nobody saw it being taken off. Aguto would only be notified by his executive officer that the map tube was missing after he had returned to headquarters in Wiesbaden, according to the investigation,” the Times reported. “It was found on the train the next day and returned, apparently untouched, via staff with U. S. Embassy Ukraine.”Aguto is not the only powerful person in the US government to be accused of intoxication on the job. In 2025 Representative Jimmy Gomez , Democrat from California asked whether Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth's decision to use Signal to discuss details of an airstrike on Houthi rebels in Yemen may have been influenced by his lengthy past history of alleged workplace intoxication."To your knowledge, do you know whether Pete Hegseth had been drinking before he leaked classified information?" Gomez asked Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and CIA Director John Ratcliffe at the time.“You know, no, I’m going to answer that,” Ratcliffe replied. “I think that’s an offensive line of questioning. The answer is no.”Similarly, in January President Donald Trump’s Secretary of Labor Lori Chavez-Deremer was accused of drinking alcohol in her office as well as having an inappropriate relationship with an unnamed male staffer (Chavez-Deremer is married). Similar to the accusation of contributing to toxicity against Aguto and others in the military, Chavez-Deremer was accused of being a "boss from hell” by allegedly instructing employees to run personal errands and perform other chores unrelated to their official responsibilities.s

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit paulstsmith.substack.com