Mike Tyson once cogently observed that, “everyone has a plan till they get punched in the mouth.” Is Donald Trump living through this fact of life today?
There is trouble in Iran. The war is not going as planned. Is it the beginning of the end for President Trump and America as the world’s heavyweight champions?
Well, consider this: Trump’s demeanor and appearance might account for—or at least strongly contribute to—one of the most salient facts about his several careers: he is almost always underestimated by his enemies. Often badly.
This is no paean to him. The fact is easily observable by friend or foe. Nothing else accounts for his being where he is despite having so many enemies, obstacles, and naysayers. So to confidently predict that he will fail in Iran is to ignore this salient and pertinent fact. His many confident prognosticators of failure over the years can scarcely be recognized for all the egg on their faces.
Still, Hadrian had his wall. Napoleon met his Waterloo. Mustafa had Vienna. The reach of even the greatest of conquerors sometimes exceeds their grasp. Is this Trump’s Waterloo—or, as David asks this week, is it his Suez?
The McAlvany analysts are not nattering nabobs of negativism, but neither do they ignore troubling developments. Be sure to benefit from their deep and germane analysis. It could be the difference between comfort and need in the years to come.
Key Takeaways:
- Is Iran the US’s high-water mark?
- Is Iran effectively winning?
- The metals speak out of both sides of their mouths—but one side more than the other
The McAlvany Weekly Commentary: Could Hormuz Be the U.S.’s Suez?
Kevin and David discuss whether the current Middle East conflict and the Strait of Hormuz could become the U.S.’s Suez moment, reshaping global power, markets, and monetary dominance. David leads with historical parallels—especially 1956 and the 1973 oil shock—arguing that energy disruptions have long, economy-wide tails: higher oil prices feed inflation, force rate and valuation adjustments, and can turn short-term market shocks into multi-year repricings that buoy real assets like gold. They weigh the trade-offs of decisive military action versus a premature withdrawal, warning that leaving Iran’s threat intact could embolden rivals, accelerate dedollarization, and erode U.S. hard and soft power. Practical choke‑point realities (shipping tolls, helium and rare‑earth supply, LNG logistics) and the strain on allies and regional producers are highlighted, as are political costs at home and morale effects on deployed forces. The conversation also touches on how sustained energy pain might catalyze renewables, the centrality of real assets, and why precious metals could shine amid fiscal and monetary missteps.
Hard Asset Insights: A New Paradigm
Morgan warns that the Iran war has already caused a potentially seismic shift in the global monetary and geopolitical order, as foreign central banks rapidly sell U.S. Treasuries to raise dollars for soaring oil purchases after the Strait of Hormuz disruption. He argues that this dumping—compounding an already stressed Treasury market from inflation and U.S. fiscal excess—has pushed yields higher and risks a stagflationary debt doom loop that could force policymakers to debase the dollar or watch a sovereign financial collapse. Morgan highlights fresh evidence that Iran can keep Hormuz effectively closed (ample missiles/drones, depleted Gulf interceptors) and flags a worrisome yuan-denominated “toll booth” and nascent petroyuan mechanics that, via China’s Shanghai Gold Exchange rails, effectively turn oil purchases into gold-for-yuan trades. The post contends that either outcome—dollar debasement or a growing petroyuan/gold regime—points to much higher gold prices, and Morgan closes by noting recent market moves (oil, precious metals, yields) that underscore the new paradigm.
Golden Rule Radio: First Quarter Market Recap
The hosts offer a measured, upbeat assessment of precious metals and broader markets, arguing that the long-term trend for gold and silver remains constructive despite a choppy path higher. They note gold’s strong first-quarter gains (ending the quarter up about 8.1% and roughly 7% from its recent bottom) and silver’s solid advance (about 5.4% Q1, trading near $75.45), while platinum and palladium lag—platinum still under $2,000 and palladium roughly $500 below platinum. The hosts stress that March’s correction looks like healthy consolidation inside an uptrend, with gold trading in a potential $4,100–$5,100 range and $4,100 acting as key support after a 200-day moving-average bounce. They contrast metals’ resilience with equity fragility—the S&P 500 has dipped to new-year lows and sits below its 200-day average—making real assets more attractive if stocks slide further. Silver’s volatility is cast as “torque” that can amplify gains when physical demand broadens, and listeners are urged to stay disciplined, buy systematically, consider ratio trades, and seek a portfolio review rather than chase headlines.
