Schiff w/ Nawfal: War is an Economic Scapegoat

On Tuesday, Peter joined Mario Nawfal for a discussion about the constitutional limits on war, the likely political and economic consequences of a U.S. confrontation with Iran, and the fiscal realities that would follow. He ties those foreign-policy risks back to money and markets, warning that debt, central-bank money printing, and a weak production base make any extended conflict costly — and he closes by contrasting gold and Bitcoin as stores of value.

He begins by reminding listeners that war is not supposed to be a unilateral decision by the president, but a grave choice for the legislature to make:

All wars need to be declared by Congress. I’ve always been opposed to war where the president makes a decision on their own to take the country to war. That’s clearly contradictory to the clear language of the Constitution, the intent of the framers. The idea was that war was to be a last resort. I mean, war was supposed to be avoided at all costs and if absolutely necessary, okay, we can go to war, but it was supposed to be the result of a deliberative process by Congress.

He reads the president’s stated goals as essentially a plan for regime change, which by definition is a wartime objective: