TUESDAY: Did anyone have the slightest idea...

TUESDAY, MARCH 24, 2026

...what Bessent was talking about? We've often cited "complexification" as one of the principal scourges of our failed or failing political culture. 

Thanks to "segregation by viewpoint," citizens tend to hear only one set of arguments, opinions and facts. They hear the claims which are preferred by their own tribal group, and they hear little else. 

But then, there's also the scourge of "complexification!" Consider what happened when Scott Bessent seemed to speak with Kristen Welker on Sunday's Meet the Press. 

Their imitation of conversation was quickly complexificated. Did anyone out in TV Land understand what the two were allegedly talking about? Also, who created more of the incoherence—Welker or Bessent?

We'll transcribe and you can decide. The policy discussion to which we refer started fairly early on, with Welker asking this: 

WELKER (3/22/26): All right. Let me talk about your announcement this past week. 

On Friday, the Treasury Department lifted sanctions on Iranian oil stored on tankers, a move that would effectively allow Iran to get more than $14 billion of oil revenue. Why is the U.S. helping to fund a country that it’s currently at war with, Mr. Secretary? 

Fellow citizens, tell the truth! At this point, were you already struggling to hold on? 

According to Welker, Treasury had lifted sanctions on Iranian oil—but apparently, only on Iranian oil which was "stored on tankers." 

We'll bite! Why would Iran be storing oil on tankers? We'll guess that few viewers knew. 

At any rate, Welker said this lifting of sanctions would allow Iran to score $14 billion. So why would the United States want to do such a thing? Bessent started like this: 

BESSENT (continuing directly): Again, Kristen, why don’t we have good facts here? That Iranian oil was always going to be sold to the Chinese. It was going to be sold at a discount. So which, which is better, Kristen? The uh, which is better? If oil prices spike to $150 and they were getting 70% of that? Or oil prices below $100? It’s better to have them where they are now. And to be clear, we had always planned for this contingency. 

Bessent wasn't finished at this point. By way of contrast, we'll guess that most viewers already were. 

For ourselves, we'll be honest. Already, we don't have the slightest idea how Bessent's reply connected to Welker's question. Nor do we have any clear understanding of what Bessent's statements actually meant. 

He said the oil in question—the oil which has been "stored on tankers"—was always going to be sold to China, presumably under terms of the pre-existing sanctions (whatever they were) or then again maybe not. Assuming that statement is accurate, he now seemed to say—several statistics were now flashed around—that Iran would gain less cash from the sale of the oil if the sanctions are lifted. 

Possibly, that would happen because the release of the oil in question was going to drive "oil prices" down. But we're basically guessing here. 

Is that what Bessent was saying? To be honest, we still have no clear idea, even two days later. That said, this initial statement by Bessent continued, with the stiff-necked secretary saying this:

BESSENT (continuing directly): About 140 million barrels are out on the water. In essence, we are Jiu-Jitsuing the Iranians. We are using their own oil against them. We have a much better line of sight, to be clear, at Treasury, when this oil goes to— If it goes to Indonesia, if it goes to Japan, if it goes to Korea, we have a much better line of sight and are able to block accounts that the oil goes into. 

When it goes into China it completely gets recycled. So to be clear, that 14 billion number is grossly overstated. 

In a word, NFI! Concerning the meaning of this continuation, we have No F**king Idea! 

Does that passage mean that the oil in question will now be sold to places other than China? That sounds like it might be what it means, as we carefully read the transcript today. But as we watched this answer fly by on Sunday, we had no freaking idea. 

As you can see, Bessent had thrown a puzzlement in at the end: 

"So to be clear," the gentleman said, possibly just to be ironic, "that 14 billion number is grossly overstated." 

We had (and have) no idea how that connected to anything Bessent had previously said. Welker may have been puzzled too. Possibly grasping at straws, she decided to say and ask this:

WELKER (continuing directly): Let me unpack what you’re just saying. First of all, how much is it? And second of all, I don’t hear you disputing that Iran will get some of the money. 

"How much is it?" Welker now said, seeming to refer to Bessent's claim that her initial $14 billion figure was just plain wrong, all wrong. She also seemed to ask why Iran should be getting any money at all from the sale of the oil. In the short run, the next few volleys went like this: 

BESSENT (continuing directly): Iran always—already gets a huge amount of the money because Iran is the largest sponsor of state terrorism and China has been funding them.

WELKER: So it was always part of the plan to un-sanction Iranian oil?

BESSENT: Again, we unsanctioned the— At Treasury, we plan for all contingencies. We have break-the-glass plans. And to be able— 

This water—this oil is floating out in Asia, and it is mostly our Asian allies—the U.S. gets virtually no oil from the Gulf. We are energy sufficient. So when we un-sanction this, rather than the oil going to China, it can go to Japan. It can go to Korea. It can go to Indonesia. It can go to Malaysia.

WELKER: And it can go to Iran too. I mean, isn’t the point that the sanctions were in place to prevent Iran from getting any of the money? They will have access to some of the money now.

BESSENT: No, again— Kristen, you’re missing the point. So, please listen to me. 

By now, the oil—or perhaps the water—was "floating out in Asia." Welker seemed to say that Iran might be able to sell some of its oil to itself!

"Kristen, you’re missing the point," Bessent said. "So, please listen to me." 

What he said about Welker might have been true (or not). But is there any reason to think that his proposed solution would have helped? 

As you can see in the Meet the Press transcript, this attempt at a policy chat continued at length from there, creating a type of "Who's on First" for the modern complexified age. 

There's absolutely nothing unusual about public "discussions" like this. This sort of thing has been the norm for decades now—and given the way we humans are wired, no one seems to notice or care. 

Our final query: 

Many people were watching at home. Did anyone have the slightest idea what these titans were talking about?