At the 2016 Republican Presidential primary debate, Donald J. Trump dressed down Jeb Bush like a misbehaving child.
After having already dubbed him as "low-energy Jeb", at this debate Trump attacked the former Florida governor for defending his brother's war in Iraq. He called the invasion a "big, fat mistake".
Trump loudly called out the GOP establishment, repeatedly reminding viewers how "they lied" about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.
The crowd at the debate, full of old guard GOP neocons, booed and hissed. But in millions of conservative and libertarian homes around the country, ears perked up.
This was the moment the MAGA movement was born. Here stood a unicorn. An openly anti-war Republican Presidential candidate. Someone who could fund his own campaign and avoid establishment entanglements. A man with charisma, humor, quick wits, and charm.
And during his first term, President Trump did a good job avoiding new wars. Despite some scuffles with Iran, he successfully steered the USS MAGA clear of any new quagmires (unlike Obama).
Along the way the MAGA ship picked up a lot of independents, and even helped cause former Democrat Tulsi Gabbard to eventually switch sides.
Will DJT be able to avoid war once again? Let's hope so, because the last thing our country needs right now is direct involvement in a hot war with a nation of 90 million people and thousands of ballistic missiles. Even if a majority of Americans did want it, and they don't, we can't afford it.
The MAGA platform was founded as an America-First phenomenon, and it should remain as such. This is the root cause of the current rift, which threatens to tear apart the most important new political movement in decades.
On Monday, Trump shocked his base by calling Tucker Carlson, one of his key supporters, "kooky".
Trump clearly believes that Tucker's anti-war rhetoric was weakening his position on Iran. Either Trump wants to keep the option to join the war open, or he wants to keep up the appearance that an attack could come at any time.
The split originated earlier on Monday, when Tucker Carlson hosted Steve Bannon on his show. In turn, Bannon hosted Carlson on WarRoom the following day. Both men agreed that the U.S. shouldn't get directly involved in the Iran vs. Israel conflict.
Jim Rickards says that Carlson and Bannon have the "two biggest megaphones with MAGA", so these two interviews are must-watches.
Tucker, mind racing from a permanent nicotine rush, was openly critical. Bannon was more measured. But both men were clearly not happy with the prospect of yet another war in the Middle East. They constantly reminded viewers of the lies we were told about the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. And of the lives and trillions of dollars which were wasted.
Trump has responded to this criticism by sticking to his line that Iran must not get a nuclear weapon, apparently at all costs, including direct American participation in the war.
Is a fracture in the MAGA movement inevitable? Not necessarily. There is still a chance that Trump is able to arrange a peace deal between Iran and Israel.
Here's what the President posted on Sunday, June 15:
Source: Truth Social
However, hopes for a deal receded after Trump ratcheted up the heat with the following post yesterday:
Source: Truth Social
The Commander-in-Chief stating that, "Everyone should immediately evacuate Tehran!" could simply be a negotiation ploy, but it could also signal imminent U.S. involvement in the war.
We're getting mixed signals from POTUS here. One minute he's working on a peace deal, and the next he's preparing for shock-and-awe. Perhaps his hardball tactics will work. We shall see.
My hope is that this is all part of a carefully-crafted pressure campaign to get Iran to give up their nuclear aspirations. But my gut says that there's a very good chance America will get involved in the very near future.
If we do become entangled in a long-term war with Iran, the fracture in MAGA could become permanent. It would seem like Trump is siding with the "never-Trumpers" who tried to sabotage his campaigns.
The nice thing about our current investment outlook is it doesn't change with the prospect of a major new war in the Middle East.
We're already long gold, silver, oil (Petrobras), and deep value emerging markets (Brazil). That's a winning recipe for an increasingly chaotic world.
And even if a peace deal comes through, that wouldn't invalidate our thesis in any way. Hard assets like precious metals and oil offer excellent risk/rewards at the moment, and the world is on the cusp of yet another money printing era. Whether we get a new war or not.
I feel good about how we're positioned. Now all we can do is watch and wait.
We'll keep you all updated as this situation progresses.
The Daily Reckoning