It’s rare that I would quote another’s column word for word, as being a prototype of what has, and still is happening. From a column by Barton Swaim on the March 12th, 2026 Wall Street journal:
“What’s motivating Donald Trump? The question lends itself to complexity on any subject, and particularly Iran. Disparaging answers abound. He wants to distract attention from the Epstein files. He likes to be the big shot and the center of attention. He wants to profit somehow. He’s following the dictates of Benjamin Netanyahu (read the Jews).
“None of these work. Mr. Trump took by far, the biggest risk of his public life, when he approved “Operation Epic Fury.” He has staked his presidency on a better-than-Pyrrhic-outcome. He has antagonized a material faction of his MAGA coalition…something he has never done before; and certainly not on this scale. That his own vice-president has close relations with that faction can’t have made his decision easier.
“The idea of Mr. Trump as a political animal, cynically weighing the war’s likely outcome in electoral terms, also doesn’t satisfy. The president could have launched a few Tomahawk missiles, declared a mission success, the regime chastened, and urged us all to feel safer, in the manner of Bill Clinton in 1998. Mr. Trump didn’t do that. He authorized a full-blown and complex assault on what a predecessor deemed a member of the, ”axis of evil.” And nearly two weeks later, despite relentlessly negative press coverage and the prospect of economic troubles, he hasn’t called it off.
“The question is why? If Mr. Trump is either the unserious buffoon his detractors on the left assume him to be, or the anti-war peacenik some of his MAGA supporters thought he was, why did he do it? What’s driving both camps batty, is that the only plausible motivation for his order to strike Iran is a judicious and honorable one: That the regime in Teheran constantly menaces America and its allies, and that its rulers can be counted on to continue their pursuit of a nuclear weapon? No bizarre ulterior motive necessary.”
Skipping a few paragraphs in Swaim’s column: ”Sometimes the simplest explanation is the best. Mr. Trump is strongly disinclined to engage in war making, particularly the sort likely to bear heavy costs. His posture toward Ukraine, demonstrates that disinclination. But at some point in his second term, the president became convinced that the risks of allowing Iran to continue in its present state were intolerably high.
“Mr. Trump’s logorrhea, together with his habit of describing whatever his administration does in superlative terms, has left him on Monday, to say that the war is, “Very complete pretty much.” Yet it goes on. He can change his mind about anything at any time, but Mr. Trump is too old-fashioned to think he can call his presidency a success, if the U.S. comes to terms with a belligerent Iran.”
Will Trump sanitize the Strait of Hormuz? Will Trump uncover and ruin the sites where the Iran missiles and drones are made and launched, daily? So far no, and the Iran attacks on non-aggressive Muslim nations continues. Will inflation be controlled? Obviously not, as Stott’s Law says that “The more of anything there is, the less they will be worth,” and that includes un-backed paper dollars and computer entries, paying bills voted for by Politicians. Is a defeat in November already certain, because of Trump’s tariffs, lies, and war? Time will tell, but be protected with gold and silver, for goodness’s sake!
-Don Stott don@coloradogold.com