Peter Schiff: The Last Thing We Need is Another War

On Tuesday’s episode of the Peter Schiff Show, Peter dismantles the claim that President Trump would end America’s wars and lays out why the recent escalation with Iran marks a sharp break from those promises. He moves from constitutional objections to the political incentives that promote conflict, and finishes by warning about the economic fallout — higher inflation, a weaker dollar, and why precious metals deserve a place in a prudent portfolio.

Peter begins by reminding listeners what Trump promised on the campaign trail and how reality has diverged from that promise:

The people who voted for Donald Trump thought that Trump was gonna end the wars; that was his big campaign slogan — no more wars, no more endless wars, no more wars in the Middle East. Donald Trump was a big critic of what happened with Iraq and all of our meddling in the Middle East; he said if he was president none of this would have happened, that he’s not there to start wars, his goal is to end wars…. Well, that is exactly what Donald Trump just did himself, and we are now at war with Iran.

He follows with a constitutional objection that will resonate with anyone who values limited government and the rule of law:

I am opposed to this for a number of reasons; the first one is that it’s unconstitutional. Now, you know that I am a big supporter of the Constitution and I want our elected leaders to follow it; after all they swear an oath to uphold, defend, and protect the Constitution from all enemies, domestic and foreign. That’s what they swear an oath to — the Constitution — not to the country, not to the voters; it’s to the Constitution. … Congress has the power to declare war — Congress, not the executive branch, not the president.

To make the point about the Founders’ intent, Peter contrasts Article One with Article Two and explains why the system intentionally split the power to prevent rash military adventures:

Article Two says that the president is the Commander in Chief of the Army and the Navy; they didn’t have an Air Force back then, but obviously that would be included today, and the president is the Commander in Chief of our armed forces. He was not given the authority to command them into war; Congress had to do that, and once Congress declared war, the president was in charge of carrying it out and prosecuting the military operations. Why did the Founding Fathers not want the Commander in Chief to be the one to declare wars? Because they were not fans of wars; they did not want war to be something we entered into lightly or commonly.

Then he walks through the political incentives that make war attractive to leaders — distraction, headline management, and industry profits — a point he frames with an eye to recent weak economic data:

Trump’s red-hot economy was already cooling rapidly; GDP numbers were collapsing, jobs were disappearing, and inflation was picking up even before oil prices jumped. … The other reason is to get the headlines. … Before the war they were talking about the Supreme Court striking down his tariffs and what a mess that was going to be. They were talking about the Epstein files. 

Peter closes by tying the geopolitical risk back into economic policy and markets, warning that wars are almost always paid for indirectly through inflation — a key reason he remains bullish on gold and silver as insurance against currency debasement:

Politicians always pay for wars through inflation; the last thing they want to do is make a war even more unpopular by asking the public to pay for it. The politicians are not going to say, ‘You know, we’re fighting this war and wars are expensive and so we have to raise your taxes so we can keep supplying the troops.’  … One of the reasons we’re able to fight all these wars is because nobody thinks they cost anything. They cost a fortune. 

How is the economy faring right now? The latest PMI numbers don’t look good.