Cromwell

What do you call a chess player who makes no effort to anticipate his opponent’s strategy, refuses to think more than one move ahead, and assumes that every game will turn out the same?

A loser.

Lindsey Graham is doing a victory lap in the Oval Office.

T: Linseed! Why are you here?

G: To congratulate you on your latest victory, of course!

T: What, higher gas prices? Plunging markets?

G: Those are just transitory. They’ll be over soon. The Iranians are about to surrender. They just don’t know it yet.

T: But what do I do next? The base doesn’t want a ground war, but the Saudis and Israelis are demanding one. I don’t have any good options.

G: You are MAGA, sir. You decide what’s right. The base will follow you wherever you go. They owe it to you, after all.

T: Why?

G: Because you made it ok for them to openly hate everything that isn’t real America, and you’re punishing that part on a daily basis. Soon blue America will look like the occupied Confederacy after the Civil War. What could be more satisfying than that?

T: You’re probably right about that.

G: The base hates Iran. After the Iranians bend the knee to you, they’ll be pushing for a place on Mount Rushmore for you.

T: Personally, I think I should have a mountain all to myself.

G: Great idea! After all, this Iran problem has been around forever. You were the only one with the guts to do anything about it.

T: Even Reagan let it slip by. He even sold them arms. I only let them sell oil during wartime to keep the price down.

G: Don’t worry about that, sir. The price will come down as soon as you say so, and the stock market will soar. Investors know how great you are.

T: I hope you’re right. If you’re wrong, the radical left will win the election, and I’ll probably get impeached again.

G: I am. Trust me. Trust me.

Jamelle Bouie argues in today’s NYT that Trump’s narcissism makes it impossible for him to attach any agency to his opponents. As a result, the great man is unable to anticipate and plan for any meaningful resistance. The Iran war is evidence of this personality disorder. Is Bouie right?

He absolutely is, but there is another element to it—Trump has no imagination. He repeats himself over and over again. That’s why he is continuing the hunt for Delcy.

Susan Collins has been able to win in a blue state by positioning herself as a fearlessly independent figure who speaks truth to both parties. She will undoubtedly point to her votes against Hegseth and the BBB as compelling evidence supporting her claim. Is it likely to work this time?

Collins voted for Patel, Bondi, and Noem. She is standing with the rest of the GOP against ICE reforms. Above all, she is doing nothing to oppose Trump’s war. And, of course, she still has that little Kavanaugh problem.

It’s going to be a tough sell this time around, and Trump is making it harder every day.

Everything I am reading indicates that oil prices should be much higher than they are based on the current supply deficit caused by the closing of the Strait of Hormuz and possible future damage to production facilities. What is keeping them down? TACO—the markets think Trump will back down and end the war ASAP.

But what if Trump throws another tantrum, and we get TADD instead? Investor confidence will be thrown on its head, and things will get very dire very quickly.

In the end, it was all worth it. All of those years of sucking up and selling himself out ultimately had the desired effect. Donald Trump is now committed to a forever war in the Middle East, and Lindsey Graham can take a large share of the credit for it.

Let’s hope he is savoring his victory. No one else is.

Napoleon famously said that if your objective was to take Vienna, take Vienna. In other words, it is important in wartime to have clear objectives and to be single-minded in achieving them.

Trump is no Napoleon. It was never clear whether he was seeking regime change or not. If he was, he picked a method of achieving it that was doomed to fail from the beginning. That’s what makes this war so stupid.

Oliver Cromwell, like the vast majority of Civil War participants on the Parliamentary side, had no intention of overthrowing the existing social hierarchy. What set him apart from the rest of the Parliamentary leaders was his refusal to look more than one move further on the board. If he saw a problem, he would choose the best and most obvious way to solve it, regardless of the consequences down the road; he would deal with them if and when they came up. In other words, he was a totally linear thinker.

In most ways, Cromwell and Trump could not be more different, but in this way, they are similar. Trump blows things up to solve an immediate problem and worries about the consequences later. We are feeling that today in connection with the war.

As several commentators have noted, Trump simply doesn’t accept the Pottery Barn rule; he thinks he can wreck things all over the globe without accepting the consequences. Is he right?

No. Wrecking causes second-tier effects that will be felt on American soil whether Trump acknowledges them or not. Soaring gas prices even at a time of impressive domestic production levels are a vivid example of this.

A few days ago, Trump told us we shouldn’t fear high gas prices because we are the world’s largest exporter of oil; therefore, the closing of the Strait of Hormuz makes us rich. What does this statement tell us?

High gas prices only benefit you if you have a large amount of stock in an oil company, which most of us don’t. As with the stock market, Trump identifies national wealth and well-being with the condition of the extremely affluent, not average workers.

Rand Paul’s negative vote on the Mullin nomination gave the Democrats an opening. If they remained united and voted against the nomination, they could delay it indefinitely. That in turn would give them some leverage in the negotiations over ICE procedures.

But Fetterman voted yes, and that was that. Maybe he thinks having ICE goons dominating the streets of blue cities is a good thing. Hey, he supported killing thousands of civilians in Gaza for no obviously good reason, so why not?

The cover of the latest issue of The New Yorker depicts Trump as Douglas MacArthur on a golf cart driven by Pete Hegseth. It is a visual representation of one of my favorite nicknames for the great man—the man on golf cart.

But in light of his record in his second term, is it accurate? As applied to the war and his retribution campaign, yes. As applied to his other efforts at authoritarianism, no, thanks to the efforts of his like-minded advisers. That’s what should really worry you.

Hegseth says the administration will ask for that sum to fund the war, which flies in the face of promises it will be over soon. Would it be a good idea to comply?

I will rephrase the question to make it answer itself. Is it a good idea to give a wannabe authoritarian a huge pot of discretionary money to spend as he pleases as long as it has some sort of bogus connection with national security?

Trump typically backs down when his risk-taking runs into serious resistance from the markets or the Chinese—hence the acronym “TACO.” In all other spheres, however, he usually doubles down. You could call it “TADD.”

What will he do with Iran? Will he declare victory and stop the war to deal with the markets, or will he double down with nukes or a ground action? TBD.

He’s driving up the price of gas, so that has to be the reason. What? You don’t agree?