Watergate wasn't the reason Nixon had to resign

#history #philosophy #economics #law #Israel JD Vance has been saying, to my absolute astonishment, some very interesting things lately. First of all, he said, "Israel can't kill its way to security." Now, really that is astonishingly good. That may be the very best summary of Israel's attitude I've ever even heard! Kill everyone, we'll be just fine. Because, of course Israel was placed in the middle of the Muslim world, quite deliberately, by Britain, America and Russia, to keep an eye on them, and to keep them in line. Because after WWI, the Ottoman Empire was destroyed, and the West never wanted another Muslim super-state to arise again in the Middle East that could threaten the West, so the split all the Ottoman Empire up into small Muslim states that would hopefully war against each other, and Israel was going to keep an eye on them, in any case. JD Vance also made another very interesting observation. Apparently unrelated, but, I don't think it is. He said, "If Watergate occurrd today, it would be a 12 hour news story." Which, of course, is exactly what Watergate was! At first, of course. When the break-in was announced in June, 1972, no one really cared much. Richard Nixon was astonishingly popular, the US economy was humming along, the stock market was at record highs, and he had pulled most of the US troops out of South Vietnam, and South Vietnam was still holding on as an independent nation. People cared so little about Watergate, that Richard Nixon won a record landslide in November for reelection, beating George McGovern by 20% in the popular vote, and winning 49 of 50 states! So, when did Watergate become so important? Why, of course, after the Arab oil embargo instituted when Nixon provided a massive airlift of arms to Israel, to avert Golda Meir's threat of using tactical nuclear weapons against the Arab forces. While Israel probably would not have been wiped out as a nation -- the Arabs didn't particularly want the pre-1967 state of Israel anyway -- they would have been forced to give up all or most of the territory they acquired in 1967. Of course, they had to do this anyway, when Jimmy Carter became President, in return for peace with Egypt. And, the resulting Arab oil embargo, totally trashed the US economy, creating a massive scarcity of oil, jacking up its price, leading to gas rationing, economic weakness, inflation and a collapsing stock market.And, the weakness of the US as the result of this also drastically weakened the South Vietnamese government, to the point that it started to collapse, eventually being forced to surrender to North Vietnam a year and a half later, in summer 1975. And, it was only then, with the prospect of defeat in Vietnam, and the reality of total economic disaster, that suddenly Watergate became an issue of "great national signficance". Because, after all, society always needs a legal pretext to destroy great men, doesn't it? They can't just have made mistakes that led to economic and military disaster, quite innocently, out of ignorance or incompetence, can they? They must be great villains, who must be sacrificed! They acted -- gasp!!! -- illegally. And, so, Watergate became a great national scandal for everyone associated with Richard Nixon, and he was forced to resign.

It's not really clear that Stalin's great purge caused the Soviet defeats in 1941

One of the points that Western historians harp upon regarding WWII, is that the massive losses suffered by the Soviet Union in 1941 were directly attributable to the Great Purge of the Soviet military hierarchy by Josef Stalin in the late 1930's. These historians contend that with a more intact senior officer corp, the USSR wouldn't have been as poorly equipped to defend effectively against Hitler's Operation Barbarossa, and that the losses of manpower and territory would have been far more modest. Now, this is of course arguable, but, is it really provable? After all, no one contends that the reason that Pearl Harbor was such a disaster for the US, was that FDR had purged the US military. Some suggest that they should have been better prepared, there are even some conspiracy theorists who argue that FDR deliberately sacrificed them to provide a military justification to enter the war, but, no one really takes them very seriously. The fact is, at the beginning of WWII, military technology favored the attacker. Tanks and fighter-bombers had shifted the advantage from defense -- which gave entrenched heavy machine guns the advantage during WWI -- to the offense. Inevitably, any moderately well prepared attacker was going to be able to advance quickly, because of this basic change in military technology. So, it is no miracle that the attackers in WWII -- Germany and Japan -- did very well at first. It may be tempting to attribute this to some fundamental error on the part of the defenders, but, this is probably not the case. In the case of the Soviet Union and Josef Stalin, this temptation is aggravated by the deep hatred and distrust that Western historians have for Stalin and Communism in general. So, the Soviet disasters at the start of WWII are inevitably and consistently attributed by Western historians to the Soviet purges in the 1930's. This is much less the case with Russian historians who, these days, are by no means fans of communism. They see these military disasters as the result of the effectiveness of the Nazi military, and the advantages accruing to the attacker. They are probably correct. Stalin wanted to ensure absolute control over the Soviet military, and absolute loyalty. These may have been advantages that allowed the USSR to win the war. Stalin may have been right.

Trump is a loser

Trump's big problem now, even with his own "base", is that it is totally impossible for him to even pretend that he "won" the Iran War. Trump lost big time, he got creamed, the trillion dollar a year US military looks like a trillion dollar a year down the tubes. Iran can attack ships in the strait of Hormuz at will, and all Trump can do is whimper about it. Donald Trump is now perceived as a total loser, and this is aboslute death to anyone hoping to commmand the respect of MAGA, with their Nazi, social Darwinist philosophy. That's the real reason Trump's popularity is in total free fall now. Donald Trump is now seen as a total loser, and Americans really don't like total losers at all.

Trump approval is down to 30%

Donald Trump has now officially dropped to the level of extremely unpopular Presidents like Richard Nixon, who, of course, had to resign to avoid imprisonment. Could Trump avoid imprisonment by resigning. I doubt it! https://www.yahoo.com/news/politics/articles/trump-approval-hits-low-ahead-194217711.html

Oil spikes

I just noticed that the price of oil rose two dollars and fifty cents in a moment, as soon as Iran announced it was closing the Strait of Hormuz again. Then, this rumor was tamped down, and oil prices dropped a couple of dollars just as quickly, so quickly it isn't presented on the chart. Isn't it fairly obvious that Iran is playing Trump, and wants to destroy him? This isn't something economists can price into their mathematical equations, so, they really don't like to talk about it, at all. But, it is very real. Iran now has the power to crush Donald Trump at will by closing the strait of Hormuz. Why wouldn't they use this power? They certainly will use it.

The agree to disagree agreement between the US and Iran has collapsed.

Now, that the agree to disagree agreement between the US and Iran has collapsed, what happens next? Well, first of all, as we're seeing, oil prices are rising again. This means that gas prices will start rising again, very shortly. There doesn't seem to be any possible basis for agreement between Trump and Iran, so that seems inevitable.

There is no peace agreement

is there really a peace agreement between Iran and the US? Probably not. They are talking, which is good, of course, but, there is no agreement, nothing even close. Iran retains full control of the Strait of Hormuz, there is no systematic clearing of mines or increase in traffic, nor is one foreseen in the near future. What we have, really, is an agreement to continue talking, nothing more. Which is fine, but, it has nothing to do with the fact that the world's strategic oil reserves are rapidly approaching empty, with no relief in sight. As usual, Donald Trump is using his sales skills to systematically manipulate markets -- something his supporters in MAGA love, of course, but which the rest of us, rather more interested in reality, find rather irritating. Because, you know, reality does have a habit of catching up to you. And, then you do have to deal with it. Trump and his MAGA friends think they can outrun the real world, but, never for long, really. And, never, forever. A spectacular rise in oil prices remains rather likely this year, and a corresponding collapse in the markets.

The world is becoming bipolar

We live on an overpopulated planet, and people are becoming progressively more uncomfortable. When rats are crowded in a cage, they often fight an destroy each other, and we are observing a similar phenomenon in the world as a whole now. So, rather than seeking "consensus", people are now seeking fundamentally new approaches that might actually work. Of course, most of them won't work very well, at all, but, when people are uncomfortable enough, they are willing to try anything, no matter how questionable, in the hopes that it might change things for the better, or, at the very least, get them somewhere else, where they might have some ideas about how to change things for the better. This is the essence of the dialectical method, as Hegel conceived it -- thesis, antithesis, synthesis. You have to try new things, extreme things, to make any progress, at all. Otherwise, you're just running in place. Consensus, generally, is just running in place, and running in place isn't working very well. Of course, those who are actually doing well, would much prefer that everyone continue running in place, because they don't want things to change much. This creates constant conflict.

Upcoming catastrophic effects of Iranian control of the Strait of Hormuz.

Iran's continued control and closure of the Strait of Hormuz will transition from the current market disruption to truly catastrophic oil price consequences by late summer 2026—specifically between July and August. Up to this point, crude prices have been heavily buffered by government releases from Strategic Petroleum Reserves (SPR) and IEA stocks. However, experts warn that these emergency buffers are being rapidly depleted, and once they run dry in the next month or two, a massive physical supply gap will trigger an acute price squeeze.The Trigger Points and Expected Price TrajectoryMarket analyses from organizations like the Brookings Institution and the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas outline a clear timeline for when the crisis escalates from severe to catastrophic:The Next 30 to 45 Days (Mid-to-Late Summer 2026): If the blockade is not definitively lifted, crude prices are projected to spike by an additional $40 to $50 a barrel in short order, pushing baseline prices toward $132 to $150 per barrel.The Extended Disruption Threshold (Beyond 3 to 6 Months): Research by firms like Wood Mackenzie indicates that if the impasse forces the Strait to remain closed through the second half of 2026, the global market will suffer structural deficits that could send crude soaring to a catastrophic $200 per barrel.The Infrastructure Tail-Risk: In worst-case military escalation scenarios—such as retaliatory strikes that physically destroy broader Gulf production or refinery infrastructure—prices could realistically reach $300 per barrel.Why the "Catastrophe" Has Delayed Until NowThough the conflict began in February 2026, a few factors have temporarily insulated consumers from immediate triple-digit price paralysis:Subsidized Reserve Drawing: Governments have heavily used the SPR as a price-control tool, selling oil around $95 a barrel to mask the physical deficit.Rerouting and Shifting Flow Dynamics: Some crude has successfully bypassed the bottleneck via Saudi Arabia’s East-West pipeline to the Red Sea or through high-risk "dark routes" transited by ship-to-ship transfers in the Gulf of Oman.Diplomatic Overtones: Recent volatile updates—such as President Trump's erratic statements regarding a potential deal—have caused energy markets to momentarily fluctuate on hope rather than pricing in a permanent closure.The Cumulative Economic Domino EffectOnce the physical reserve cushions empty, the crisis stops being just an "oil shock" and transforms into a systemic macroeconomic threat. The Atlantic Council highlights that governments will soon be forced to transition away from price subsidies to mandatory energy rationing and demand reduction.Vulnerable, import-dependent emerging markets in Asia are already feeling acute pressure, resulting in energy austerity measures and increased reliance on dirtier alternative fuels like coal. For Western economies, the delayed surge in transportation costs will imminently feed into broader inflation sticky-points, entirely evaporating the likelihood of interest rate reductions for the foreseeable future.

Why do some revolutions succeed, while others fail?

Obviously, some revolutions are more effective than others. Some are totally still born, some result in massive changes. Why exactly? Obviously, it's necessary for a large proportion of the population to want change, for change to occur, but, quite frequently that isn't nearly enough to cause a successful revolution. In 1989, 100 million Chinese were actively demontrating for democracy, they were crushed completely merely by Deng Xiao Peng -- who wasn't really a communist hardliner at all, just a pragmatist -- killing perhaps at most a few thousand students, in the Tiananmen Square massacre. Everyone just stopped demonstrating, end of story. A similar result occurred in Iran just recently. Massive demonstrations involving many millions, a few thousand killed, everybody gave up. Obviously, it helps if there is some outside assistance. The American Revolution probably would have failed, if France hadn't massively intervened, particularly with naval assistance, to her great cost. Actually, this bankrupted France, and caused her own Revolution! But, that Revolution could quite possibly have been crushed, if Louis XVI had been tough enough, and acted quickly and firmly enough, with military force. The Russian Revolution of 1917 was caused by institutional collapse in the face of wartime deprivations, and an obsolete social structure. So, the key points may be the weakness of the actual government, and the extent of the deprivations really suffered by the citizens themselves. Also, the extent of substantial outside assistance, opposing or supporting the existing government. Iran has solid support from both Russia and China, and, its social system, however disagreeable to the West, is tried and true in terms of surviving any and all conflicts, with anyone.

A market crash for the US under Donald Trump, is good news for the world as a whole

It appears that the AI bubble is bursting, and that, combined with high oil prices due to the continuing Iranian control of the Persian Gulf, is very bad news for the stock markets. They are overvalued, and have been for a long time. Donald Trump has been doing a lot of damage, but, the continued strength of the markets has been propping him up politically, to some extent. That may be about to end, as the markets begin to expect a major correction or partial crash this summer. The Democrats are already 6 or 7 points ahead in the polling, and have been as much as 8 points or more ahead recently. A major correction or partial market crash this summer would likely increase the Democrat lead into double digits, enough to guarantee them control of House and Senate by comfortable margins, efffectively, if not actually, putting an end to Donald Trump's presidency.

The new Iranian hostage crisis

On the surface, Donald Trump and Jimmy Carter wouldn't seem to have a great deal in common, at all. Trump is a billionaire showman, Carter was a farmer and engineer. Of course both became President, but, otherwuse, rather different types indeed. But, they have come to have something significant in common. They both have gotten on the wrong side of the Iranians, and, if there is one thing the last half century has taught us, it's that getting on the wrong side of the Iranians, is a very bad idea, indeed. Look what happened to the Shah, to Jimmy Carter, to Saddam Hussein, to George Bush Junior? They crossed the Iranians, and they were finished, politically, or actually, and existentially. And, it does appear, exactly the same thing is happening again to Donald Trump, and quite possibly, to Benjamin Netanyahu, as well. The Iranian hostage crisis in the late 1970's was a brilliant masterstroke of political theatre that brought down President Jimmy Carter. As it happens, that wasn't such a great idea for the Iranians, since it resulted in the invasion and occupation of much of Iran by Saddam Hussein for years, and the election victory of conservative President Ronald Reagan, in the 1980's. However, even that kind of worked out for Iran, since Reagan brought down their enemy, the Soviet Union, and the defeated Saddam Hussein, all by themselves. Now, Iran has brought about a new hostage crisis, due to Donald Trump's most imprudent repeated attacks on Iran, and murders of their leaders. Iran has, quite literally taken the entire Persian Gulf hostage. As a result, Donald Trump must beg the Israelis to cease their attacks in Lebanon, lest Iran stop talking to him. As a result, Iranian backed Iraqi militias are unifying with the Iraqi government itself, as Iraq pivots towards Iran.