“Lost in the noise of the broadening regional war sparked by the U.S.-Israeli attack on Iran was a historic turning point: Qatar shot down two Iranian jets approaching its territory. The Monday action, the first time an Arab state militarily clashed with Iran, carried a message: Under siege, once-passive Gulf Arab states are striking back. In less than 72 hours of this new war, the Gulf states have been transformed, evolving from dependents on American security that were pushing for peace to wartime ralliers actively fighting to defend their countries. The Gulf states still hold out hope that diplomacy can end the conflict. Until then, however, they are showing willingness to do whatever it takes, even increasingly offensive action, to protect their citizens, residents, and economies. In so doing, they are changing the way they view themselves and their relationship with the United States.” (03/04/26)
Source: Macroeconomic Policy Nexus
by Peter Conti-Brown
“The Federal Reserve has never had a year quite like 2025. It was, by my lights, the most challenging political environment for the Fed since its creation. A potential exception is 1950 and into 1951. During that time, President Harry Truman—fighting for his political life amidst fears of war, hot and cold, and an economy that appeared to teeter on the brink of stagflation—made his relationship with the Fed a major focus of his attention. The consequence of that focus was, by March 1951, the famous Fed-Treasury Accord (sometimes styled the Treasury-Fed Accord). This important moment in the Fed’s history has been the subject of great interest among historians and economists who study the relationship between the Fed and the rest of government. And, perhaps unsurprisingly given the recent political focus, the Accord has come back to more general attention too.” (03/05/26)
“It has now become de rigueur to call Starmer out for his legal cretinism. A writer for the Sun called him a ‘timid lawyer who is more attached to the enforcement of globalist judicial codes than the protection of our civilisation’. Writing in the Telegraph, Oxford theology professor Nigel Biggar said Starmer’s ‘blind obedience to international law’ has been a ‘boon to the world’s monsters’. This criticism is understandable. Prioritising international law over the national interest has been a defining feature of Starmer’s government, long before the strikes on Iran. It is, arguably, the only feature of his government.” (03/04/26)
Source: Independent Institute
by William F Shughart II
“I’m one of the many Americans who hate being forced to time-shift twice a year. After only four months on standard time, daylight saving time returns with a vengeance on Sunday, March 8, when 2 a.m. abruptly becomes 3 a.m. Only residents of Arizona (with the exception of those living on the land reserved for the Navajo Nation, which is compelled to follow Washington’s timekeeping edicts), Hawaii, Guam, Puerto Rico, and other outlying U.S. territories will not have their body clocks jolted by time suddenly ‘springing forward’ one hour. Public opinion has been slowly turning against the twice-yearly ritual of moving the clock hands forward and backward. The main question nowadays is, what is to be done, policy-wise?” (03/04/26)
“Once war begins and American soldiers are under fire, a rational discussion of the pros and cons of war becomes nearly impossible. That is exactly why our Founders wrote a Constitution that demands a debate before the initiation of war. But there was no debate in Congress, let alone a vote. On Feb. 28, Americans awoke to discover that their country was once again embroiled in a war in the Middle East. Americans were not asked if they would bear the burdens of war. Instead, the American people were told, through a presidential eight-minute video posted around 2:30 in the morning, that the country was, once again, at war. And because there was no national discussion about going to war, we do not know whether ground troops will be used. We have no idea how long the war will last. We have no idea who will lead Iran after the death of the supreme leader.” (03/05/26)
“It was beyond disconcerting to hear the Iranian foreign minister on Sunday sounding like Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky circa 2022. But that’s the comparison that instantly sprang to mind when Abbas Araghchi told George Stephanopoulos on ABC’s ‘This Week’: ‘What the United States is doing is an act of aggression. What we are doing is the act of self-defense. There are huge differences between these two.’ All you have to do is substitute Russia for the United States and it is all too clear who and what we have become. An aggressor nation that kills people on Caribbean fishing boats without evidence or due process. That captures and removes the Venezuelan president, then lays claim to Venezuela’s oil. That assassinates Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, sparking retaliatory attacks by Iran across the Middle East.” (03/04/26)
“It used to be so much easier to sell a war of choice. Bill Clinton mobilized troops for NATO’s mission to bomb Yugoslavia, and around three in five Americans approved. George W. Bush announced Operation Iraqi Freedom; more than 70% of adults went along with it. Americans were war-wearier in 2011, after electing the only presidential candidate who’d promised to get out of Iraq. But half of them heard Barack Obama endorse a no-fly zone over Libya and said: Why not? Operation Epic Fury doesn’t get that benefit of the doubt. If you’re old enough to remember the Iraq War build-up, a year-long sales job that it became ‘unpatriotic’ to question, the lack of any real presidential persuasion effort has been surreal.” (03/04/26)
“If J. D. Vance promised one thing during the 2024 presidential campaign, it was that America would not enter into a war with Iran of the kind that is currently raging. ‘America doesn’t have to constantly police every region of the world,’ Vance told the comedian Tim Dillon on his podcast. … These arguments look farcical now that President Trump has chosen—months after bombing Iran’s nuclear facilities and pronouncing its enrichment efforts ‘completely and totally obliterated’—to join Israel in launching a war on the Islamic Republic. … Vance entered the White House as a man full of ideas—about a more modest place for the United States in world affairs; a new, worker-friendly version of Republican economics; and aggressive, Teddy Roosevelt–style regulation of Big Business. Yet Iran is just the latest example of a noticeable trend: Within the Trump administration, Vance’s opinions seem to matter less and less.” (03/05/26)
